At time 4:17 in the video I laughed for 2 minutes !! Great talk ! Thank you

@arctic_haze

3 жыл бұрын

Well why are you surprised? Microtubules demand some respect. don't they? 🤔

@nziom

3 жыл бұрын

that was amazing I love the editing

@lamcho00

3 жыл бұрын

Yep got me too :)

@arctic_haze

3 жыл бұрын

@First Commenter An interesting question. I must admit that as a physicist I do not like the very mathematic approach to fundamental physics which characterizes Penrose (almost as if mathematics was more real than the things it is supposed to represent). However he got the Nobel prize for his most physical study: work on star collapse into black holes. I think they gave it to him because they never gave it to Hawking for related work but still it was well earned. For the gravitational collapse, not for his other (sometimes weird) ideas.

@secondaryfront

3 жыл бұрын

fine gif material.

Her showmanship has improved a lot! Her first videos were clear and informative, but now she is entertaining as well! keep up the good work : )

@tarmaque

3 жыл бұрын

I dunno. I have always found her entertaining. 👍

@Aufenthalt

3 жыл бұрын

And now she has also advertisements, still more entertaining and informative.

@memorythief1952

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, I have to agree with the @tarmaque; her dry humorous edge has always been there. I just am disappointed she didn't shamelessly plug herself with one of her wonderful and relavent music videos... talk about creative..! Make more Sabine! ~

@didierborne166

3 жыл бұрын

Physicists have already made a mess out of their own science, so mind as well make a mess out of the next field of science.

@teemlee51

3 жыл бұрын

Check out her music videos...highly entertaining!

It's simple: Consciousness Particle. Says so in the mathematics, just need to build a $1 trillion collider to find it.

@deltasumit

3 жыл бұрын

LOL 😂😂😂😂

@ristopaasivirta9770

3 жыл бұрын

Before fully committing to one trillion dollars, we could build a couple hundred billion version that can definitively tell the energy levels where that particle will not be.

@GreenyX1

3 жыл бұрын

@@ristopaasivirta9770 Great Idea, also we could then spend another few 100 Billion to upgrade it before we build the Trillion $ version because other maths from string theorists will need a look over, not to mention finding those elusive Time Particles, Tachyons. My 6 year old says maths is a tool and not science, then had the gall to say that Mathematicians and Physicists are not Scientists. I had to kick em out of my Platinum plated Rolls Royce

@Mevlinous

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe it’s dark matter, probably have about as much chance of finding it too

@ChristopherWentling

3 жыл бұрын

It also requires adding another dimension to string theory.

I was reading Roger Penrose's 'The Emperor's New Mind' as an undergraduate in the late 80's. A graduate neuroscience researcher noticed me reading it at lunch one day and asked what I thought of it. I replied that I didn't know enough to form an opinion one way or the other. He said that whilst he found the book interesting, he couldn't help feeling that because consciousness is weird and quantum mechanics is also weird. Then people may form a theory that they're somehow linked only because they are both weird.

@josephmurillo8043

2 жыл бұрын

Your observation is on point. I also think the same way that researcher does.

@RyRy2057

2 жыл бұрын

@@josephmurillo8043 yeah, so long as we have ideas we will have idealism to some degree, I just think the way modern science is done (within modern society, nothing in society is free from the influence of how it is organized ofc) presents room for such idealism to grow because "oh well, it can't be falsified so it's an equally legitimate hypothesis!", which is such a vulgar distortion of what "science" is based solely on what some Enlightenment thinkers came up with and then got super popular among academics last century. Humans have always thought scientifically, and having a step-by-step scientific theory, while obviously extremely helpful overall, presents the opportunity for stuff like this to nestle in

@jhoughjr1

Жыл бұрын

well they are both peculiarly weird so investigating a correlation seems reasonable.Nothing is else is weird as they. That gives them something in common.

@samwilson9568

Жыл бұрын

Lol yes - its like getting two pieces of lego and seeing if they stick together. Still worth having this explorational mindset though!

@nightblade4713

Жыл бұрын

its completely possible for consciousness to be separate from the body. Or for consciousness to be the real material of the whole universe. The only problem with this is when people say that they know for sure it is that way (dogmatic spiritual people) or when they say they know for sure that it isn't that way (arrogant atheists)

"Your Phi is small" is gonna be my new "you're dumb" insult

@NonDelusional74611

3 жыл бұрын

You won’t be able to deal with my tears

@blueredandyellow8389

3 жыл бұрын

Your phi and iq is small as well as of all of normies in this comment section Factual

@danielhoefler3830

3 жыл бұрын

@@blueredandyellow8389 yeah dude, bet your ego is going to fix that! Do you really think people are going to keep going with physics if we keep telling them they are stupid because they are inexperienced?

@blueredandyellow8389

3 жыл бұрын

@@danielhoefler3830 who even are you

@danielhoefler3830

3 жыл бұрын

@@blueredandyellow8389 oh I'm a nobody, but I don't need to talk down on people to be a somebody

Sabine is a science educational superstar. I love her skepticism and skeptical humor. She is a treasure.

@KibyNykraft

2 жыл бұрын

Sometimes. Not always. Sometimes it is unclear whether she supports science or mysticism/esoterics. One can calculate nature, but the foundational principles of nature is not mathematics, just like it is not divinities or other magical wand stuff. The foundational principle of all nature is motion, mass and force/charge respectively.

@Fdan36

Жыл бұрын

@@KibyNykraft why are the foundational principles not mathematical? Mathematics is just an expression of things.

A classic read on consciousness: Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter. Also the follow-up, I Am a Strange Loop.

@AndrewBlucher

3 жыл бұрын

A Stranger Loop in a Stranger Land

@martinmuller3244

3 жыл бұрын

It is a glorious book. Mine finally fell apart from too avid reading. I'll keep a lookout for the sequel. I do think it highlights a particular aspect of consciousness, but one that only manifests when reason is tied down in a mathematical literature (similarly to the formalised music of Bach). I spent a long time flirting with constructivist mathematics a la Errerett Bishop. Constructivist mathematics basically rebuilds mathematics without the doctrin of the excluded middle. So only proof by construction is valid. It avoids some of the more mystic aspects of mathematics. I finally realised the underlying structure is that of a language, and if I build from different axioms, I simply use different words. It is as if a part of us constructs reality around the things we pay attention to. So I doubt if this paragraph has ever been written by anyone, but its meaning is reasonably tight. So there seems to be a part of us that holds fixed meanings (words) and can arrange these fixed meanings using an implicit convention arranged by mutual agreement (a grammar) into sentances that convey meaning. I wonder if a consciousness in any way akin to ours can exist without this.

@caseyspeaks6380

3 жыл бұрын

@@kensho123456 -- the speed of light was deterined empiracly. Many times by many people.

@andsalomoni

3 жыл бұрын

Other important reads about consciousness and awareness: Ramana Maharshi, "Conversations with Sri Ramana Maharshi" Osho, "Meditation: the First and Last Freedom"

I cringed when I saw the title, but was pleased when you identified how far we are from understanding this subject. One thing I like about Physicists is they are often very willing to explore and entertain ideas that fall outside of perceived mathematical rules of reality. Biology on the other hand tends to block out the idea of consciousness, some in the field openly arguing that consciousness doesn't exist or even that life doesn't exist - that we're just chemical accidents of the universe who exercise no real choice in our existence. Think about that, they are conscious of the idea that consciousness doesn't exist. Unfortunately, I think there's also a motivational conflict from those who view consciousness as not existing. A lot of "science" is underpinned by the desire to control reality rather than actually understand it. And so there tends to be great pathological resistance to the idea that there may be aspects to reality that cannot be explained or controlled by mathematics. But the mere existence of the universe and consciousness continue to evade satisfactory mathematical explanation. The failure of AI further illustrates the point. Even the most complex and advanced computers and software in the world are no more conscious or alive than a household toaster. They're just automation, incapable of doing anything other than what the conscious minds who created them have specified in the program.

@christiancastruita9053

2 жыл бұрын

I am majoring in mathematics and I agree. For example, the existence color cannot be explained by physics. Physics can explain why we see certain colors; when a particular wavelength of light hits our eye and sends a signal to our brain. However, we cannot explain where the colors that we consciously experience come from.

I read Penrose’s book way back when and was struck with the lack of a rigorous concept of how quantum states in microtubules had any bearing on consciousness. It was just posited that microtubules were where it happened. It felt like a god of the gaps argument .

@MiguelGarcia-zx1qj

2 жыл бұрын

By the time I read Penrose's book (Shadows of the mind?) I had just finished Shank and Abelson "Scripts, plans, goals and understanding". Penrose started that microtubule crap because he was unable to find a sensible explanation for the fact that mind response to external stimuli, especially those that arise in human conversations, was too fast for the speed of neural signals transmissions. Had he been in contact with what was already know (or, at least, theorised) about the working of the mind, we would have been spared his quantum nonsense. Indeed, a god in Penrose's gaps.

@willmosse3684

Ай бұрын

@@MiguelGarcia-zx1qjInteresting you used the god of the gaps analogy. I have only just come across Penrose’s ideas on quantum collapse causing consciousness, but I immediately thought it was quite like the “god of the gaps” argument. A kind of negative image of it - a physics of the gaps. We don’t understand consciousness, and there’s a part of physics or the physical universe that we don’t understand, so consciousness must reside in that gap. Similar to how the OP said, both are weird, so we put them together, I would see it as neither are understood, so we put them both together. That said, if we don’t look for explanations of things, we will never find them. So I guess it’s good that people are looking…

There are some comments claiming the two reaction shots of Sabine as being disrespectful. I think skepticism is appropriate to unproven theory, even if I admire Penrose as the author. She gets to make the video she wants to, opinions and all! 🤯👍👍

@b43xoit

3 жыл бұрын

Yes and sometimes people who are stellar in some fields of study mouth off about what they know nothing about and come up with as bad hypotheses as those do who know nothing about anything.

@dennismajor1

2 жыл бұрын

Yes of course she gets to make the video she wants however it seems to be at the cost of loss of objectivity at which point she joins the cadre of scientists who allow emotion to unconsciously creep into their thinking. All the theories reviewed here are nascent in the sense they lack multiple levels of hard evidence yet she selects one to mock. Too often politicians, scientists, entertainers etc are put on pedestals and not seen for who they are at their core; another one of humanity encompassing all the good and bad parts of being human. When a scientist shows signs of lacking objectivity in a given instance they need to be called out - not be admired for their ability to entertain. Many times in other videos she gets it right when she calls out the hubris of other scientists. That’s wonderful; just be vigilant for the same kind of thing in one’s self.

@wiczus6102

2 жыл бұрын

It's a nonsensical theory tbh. Penrose has his fair share of achievements but he doesn't understand the topic here. In his explanation for this theory he fails to understand that logical thinking can arise from empirical learning. We already have a model (Hebbian and anti-Hebbian, or more broadly association) that explain thought and intent. We can even emulate this process with NN's. And just like in NN's the state is too complicated to analyse (although that's basically what psychiatry is) but the algorithm behind it is childishly simple. Yes NN's and BNN's have differences but the core of the algorithm is based on highschool biology. For me it looks like an old person devolving into mysticism hoping that there is something more to existance than there actually is. Maybe our minds get saved in the quantum state and we never actually die or something like that.

@notexactlyrocketscience

2 жыл бұрын

Penrose is a giant and so far not disproven. HIs consciousness side project is just a hobby of his because he believes we're non-computational. It wouldn't bother him (imho) in the slightest if non-computation was possible in any other fashion.

@jamescooke5063

2 жыл бұрын

@@wiczus6102 @wiczus You may be right. But when you write 'than there actually is' what you mean is, 'than what we reasonably have evidence for'. The distinction is important if you are claiming an objective, open-minded viewpoint.

"too warm and wiggly environment" was challenged in a paper Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility S. Hagan, S. R. Hameroff, and J. A. Tuszyński Phys. Rev. E 65, 061901 - Published 10 June 2002 Worth the read.

@danzigvssartre

3 жыл бұрын

Hameroff has been fighting back against Tegmark’s paper for 2 decades. I can see the fumes coming out of Hameroff’s ears as Sabine quotes that paper from way back in 1999.

@bd7491

3 жыл бұрын

That is good stuff.

@shadowmax889

3 жыл бұрын

Even if there is a possibility that quantum effects in the microtubules within neurons in the brain, Who cares? Computation in the brain is not done by microtubules but by networks of neurons, too big to make those quantum effects meaningful, there is no plausible biological mechanism why quantum effects in microtubules has anything to do with consciousness.

@shadowmax889

3 жыл бұрын

@@kensho123456 "Little thing generate big things" Don't give me that woo crap, without any plausible mechanism the quantum theory of consciousness is pure pseudoscience

@Supersctar

3 жыл бұрын

@@shadowmax889 Hameroff says each microtubule is a string in a symphony of consciousness. I don’t know the technical details but I’m sure they are in their papers if you actually cared to look.

00:15 “attempted to demystify the brain by throwing math at the problem” She is a savage

@bobaldo2339

3 жыл бұрын

Could she have been a dominatrix in a former life?

@wendyleeconnelly2939

3 жыл бұрын

can throw shade like Dr Todd Grande (psychologist KZreadr, great videos, lots of subtle shade)

@kiwin111

2 жыл бұрын

savage XDDDDDDDD shut up.

@cdorman11

2 жыл бұрын

Not all that can be counted counts. Not all that counts can be counted.

"Consciousness Transferring". Transferring consciousness into a more powerful medium in the distant future is one of the things I'm looking forward to. I don't mean copy and pasting, but having a brain made out of material that can sustain consciousness that is more durable and powerful than the stuff that makes up our current brains. To do this requires a vastly better understanding of what it means to be conscious, and why we are, whether it's ORCH-OR, ITT, or something else, we need to know.

Well obviously, for the conscious brain, Φ = 42. This answer matches the estimated calculation time very well!

@rodrigoserafim8834

3 жыл бұрын

Well done. I'll go fetch my towel and a bowl of petunias.

@mellowfellow6816

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, but what is the question?

@Este730

3 жыл бұрын

42 what

@caseyspeaks6380

3 жыл бұрын

@@Este730 - reference to Dougalas Adams's "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" -

@wiczus6102

2 жыл бұрын

Gamers have Φ = 69420 which is clearly more than 42. Check Mate.

Your channel is so refreshing. Thank you!

Danke Sabine, es macht immer Spaß Dir zuzuhören!

'... are way too simple to be correct!' I totally agree! Recently, I was watching a (long) video of Lex Fridman with Andrew Huberman, a neuroscientist; he said that we know basic things about the brain, but our general knowledge is around 1% and so, a long, long way to go before understanding how it works. Therefore, consciousness is probably way, way more complicated than people think.

@Dragrath1

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah I would say it is definitely more complex after all we still don't understand why we and all other animals with neurons need sleep after all if it wasn't important then you would expect nature to select away from a state that leaves the organism defenseless against potential predators. In more general terms we know the brain evolved it wasn't programed fully formed this particularly matters given the complex and haphazard approach of good enough to reproduce that natural selection favors as it means there is always a lot going on. There is also some ideas that have not received much attention namely that neurons in addition to electrical impulses also contain mechanical impulses which we know from studies of slime mold intelligence is able to propagate information so the concept that mechanical aspects of the brain might be relevant shouldn't be dismissed outright. Honestly we need to be able to understand the brains and even the nervous systems of simpler animals like Bilaterian's sister group Cnidaria , or the independently evolved nervous system of ctenophores for starters as they are surprisingly sophisticated for organisms which only have a decentralized neural network. We still don't fully understand how decision making and memory work in unicellular Eukaryotes yet lone the neglected studies of the networks of fungi and plants which have definitely shown long term memory and the ability to make decisions. I believe there has even been interesting studies of bacterial biofilms and the related deep mystery of how and why does Anesthesia work on all life forms it has been tested on in the various domains of life? And even computation has its own mysteries to resolve particularly in light of Wolframs recent hypergraph model which shows that emergent consequences of a simple Turing machines acting on a sufficiently large network. With only two major assumptions (causality and the system not growing without bounds i.e. convergence) they have proven that in the continuum limit it naturally reproduces space as a function of communication(updating) lag as well as Einstein's field equations and the Feynman path Integral as Einstein's field equations acting in a observational state or probability space with a different set of constants of proportionality. (In other words it is interesting even if it doesn't apply to our universe So yeah objectively speaking there is a long long way to go before consciousness can truly be addressed as only when we fully understand how other organisms make sense of their environments in detail will we likely even have the right questions to finally answer. At this point I think we are missing too much of the picture to be able to figure it out.

@Age_of_Apocalypse

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dragrath1 Thousands of researchers all over the world have worked for decades to understand the human brain and we still know almost nothing; you can bet your next paycheck that it's incredibly complex and our civilization may not live long enough to find out all the answers. Some say that we are not intelligent enough to understand our amazing and extraordinary brain and I agree with them.

@cosmikrelic4815

3 жыл бұрын

"consciousness is probably way, way more complicated than people think." there's an irony in there somewhere.

@Age_of_Apocalypse

3 жыл бұрын

@@cosmikrelic4815 And consciousness will most likely remain a mystery.

Phi shrinking and growing sounds are the cutest. Also Sabrine reactions to tubules hypothesis is a gif waiting to be born. Also that phi doesnt decrease during sleep seems to me like the conscientiousness parts of brain are still active just performing the waste disposal task, but to mind-matrix it looks like dreaming hehe

@jhoughjr1

Жыл бұрын

dreaming is only a small part of sleep though. To me , paraphrasing Free Will, if I play a tennis game with you on Tuesday and then take a blanking "anesthetic" like versed and immediately forget it happened, my experience will not be a conscious one of the events despite the fact at the time I was conscious. So that could explain the lack of difference during sleep. Maybe we are conscious during sleep but don't record any of it.

@Stret173

Жыл бұрын

@@jhoughjr1 gotta say this correlates very well with the experience of expansive dreams that you can only remember that they happened but can recollect any content of

1. To the Quik: Excellent presentation by Commentator! Excellent [Graphic on Consciousness]! Seizure noted! 2. To Observe: [From the Graphic], without a doubt, (a) [Consciousness] is [Timing]. (b) [Rhythm] has [Depth] as in [Perception]. 3. To the Point: [Vision & Intellect] was a great advancement for the [Brain]. What remained? 4. The [Physical] & [Emotions]! "Emotions don't lie"! 5. All for [Awareness] & [Consciousness]! A Healthy [Mind & Body]! A [Brain] for [Connectivity]! An [Enviroment] "to express" [Thankfulness]! Nature is Intelligent! Spirit & Love! Amen, my friend. Peter (Jamieson), a part of Nature's Intelligence! (Spirit & Love)!

What an episode. It is so intriguing. I appreciate that you also share your opinion about the different theories. One big problem is the meaning of the word consciousness itself. How can we achieve a logical interpretation of this phenomenon?

@charlyroussel

Жыл бұрын

I guess digested perception is the best way to see consciousness. The problem is we are limited to our perception of consciousness, who knows how a plant without a brain actually interprets its sourrunding.

@tommytao

6 күн бұрын

I agree that meaning of word "consciousness" itself is a big problem. The video has not defined it in advance. On the other hand, if we define consciousness as "self-awareness", it seems that IIT and phi are not necessary and consciousness is much easier to be explained! I watched Prof. Jurgen Schmidhuber talking about consciousness under this definition, here is the video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/im2uztiKmarZhag.html (From 29:40 to 39:15) In short, for humans to do planning (i.e.: finding action sequence for maximizing reward) in daily life, humans must know how the world and its reward changes under different action sequences, in order to evaluate the action sequences and hence choose the best one (i.e.: action sequence with maximum reward). To achieve the mentioned, a simplified and highly compressed world model is built inside human brain to represent properties and relationships of most items in the observed world. Because the observed world always consists of the human itself, a concept of self is naturally and inevitably formed in the world model, and consciousness (i.e.: self-awareness) emerges.

There's no doubt that subject things to maths experiments will make them really special thanks Sabin!

The mathematics of consciousness is that there is a 100% chance we have no clue what consciousness is.

@shashikamanoj1160

3 жыл бұрын

Brilliant

@sagralvitandi7525

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly. Consciousness is mystery as life itself. Bhagavad-gita says that every living soul is amazing and consiousness itself is amazing as well.

@MrJaimeaquerol

3 жыл бұрын

But the video talked about 3 guys that have a clue. If it's right or wrong only time will tell. You contradicted yourself saying 100%. And military studies are mostly ahead. If you don't work in the edge of the field you won't know probably won't have access to this kind of information.

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

Post 44! YOU , Sam Harris and Sabine is wrong about your mind. But how so? PUZZLE FOR YOU . A man said to me the below [do read it] "Existence requires time. Space-time was created in the Big Bang, so before that, time was absent and the word existence is meaningless. A different model is needed, perhaps one that incorporates quantum fluctuations. Absolute truth is unreachable due to Heisenberg Uncertainty, but we still have practical truth which incorporates probability. Ethics and morals are not absolute, but are relative to the survival and prosperity of our species, humanity." QUESTION: WHY IS THE MAN WHOLLY INCORRECT? HAVE A THINK THEN READ ONWARDS. I REPLIED TO HIM: Thanks so much for reply. I will address every issue, and point I can squeeze out from your words to do you greatest most respect. Okay? 1. Existence does not by necessity require time. In fact the evidence both philosophically (what really matters) and scientifically is against this! Consciousness identifies existence. This means existence existed, exists and will forever exist. One can't ask "how did existence come to be?" Because that is the presuppose "existence before exists" a contradiction. Time is a measurement characteristic. Does time exist ? I have not come to a definite conclusion yet. It's a great question! And there is no reason that there as a conventional big bang. That's a "Story". Man does not know (in science) IF there was a big bang. Man knows things a billionth of a billion seconds after the purported big bang but in this case it does not mean a "big bang" in the conventional sense. Also something can not come from no-thing. 2. Existence is not yet understood by you. To say existence is meaningless is to assert you are de facto stating falsity. On which "dimension, realm" are you even asserting a purported truth? Whatever your answer, it is within "some" existence. So existence exists. Today there are many that say there's X% chance you're in a simulation. This is error just like deity is error. It is presupposing existence BEFORE existence, and throwing things in to infinite regress, reductio ad absurd-um (absurdum): error of logic. Further you can not deny Objective metaphysics: existence, mind nor identity. To even form an argument in denial means you must ASSERT that there is existence (see above) and you have a mind that is capable of reaching a valid conclusion [that needs a mind with free will to distinguish and differentiate wrong from a right using a known method called logic - i.e. there is identity]. So metaphysics [actuality-reality]: existence, mind and identity in this order. 3. You said "Absolute truth is unreachable due to Heisenberg Uncertainty" a. that means what you are saying is de facto WRONG. If it is not truth then it is wrong. So you are in check mate. Furthermore you are generalizing a principle of science , in this case quantum physics to the entirety of reality - something that even Heisenberg [the Nazi scientist that was in charge of building the Nazi atomic ] did NOT EVEN SAY ! YOU ARE SAYING IT. Pure bunk. He PROBABLY would have given you a black eye and bloodied up nose . Do you agree? b. Although quantum physics is intrinsically uncertain (Bell's experiment) nevertheless it does not "therefore" mean that reality is free from causality. In fact it is impossible to be free from causality [see point 1 above]. What you have not distinguished is determinism from causality .Listen carefully: whereas determinism needs causality, in contrast causality does not need determinism. The mind is necessarily perpetual first cause at all times in all things when you make decisions at every moment of your life. Furthermore, "from underlying causality", man gets the "emergence" of quantum physics AND general relativity. A toy model that is excellent to grasp this is Stephen Wolfram's "New Physics" [see his items - his "rule" for this]. Wolfram would argue that quantum physics is pseudo-random: meaning it is intrinsically and forever random to the human , and man can not know the next step with certainty for any particle but it is following a computational rule. So it is EPISTEMOLOGICALLY RANDOM but not METAPHYSICALLY. This distinction is CRUCIAL . Man does not know and can NOT know how quantum particle will behave but it is following some law. Bell 's experiment seems to argue otherwise stating quantum mechanics is intrinsically random. If that is the case, then it may be random at that emergent level but it is emerging from something deeper [there is a larger body of physicists that argue this]. What is the truth though? Philosophically there is order - there has to be otherwise you would NOT exist as a consistent pattern nor be able to grasp anything. 3. If ethics and morals (HEREINAFTER called ethics) are not absolute then you can do the most savage disgusting things to your own family and to little kids . INDEED many MANY MANY people, particularly Catholic Priests have a history of doing this already. You are once again incorrect. Ethics for man is "burnt into the cosmos" just as man himself is. How so? All species come pre-adapted to a niche environment. Man however is a definitive identity (homo sapiens sapiens - just so you know) and must re-adapt the environment to himself to even survive . Man is an individual of a definitive species that "must" exercise free will to think* and act in order to survive at every moment of your life. Further more there is correct thinking versus incorrect thinking (right versus wrong : Aristotle's law of identity in metaphysics - see above). Man can know what is right using the methods of reason and logic. There is no other way: reason is man's only way to reach valid conclusion. Therefore man by his very nature (in the cosmos as he is of the cosmos) possess the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means you can NOT USE FRAUD OR FORCE against fellow man. It also means fraud or force "is" evil. Man needs a government to protect the above rights. The above rights exists "burnt into the cosmos"" for the species "homo sapiens sapiens" - JUST LIKE THE SPECIES CALLED "fish" MUST SWIM [and can NOT live on land outside a body of water - that is also burnt into the cosmos]. And to remind you : "Fish" is an identity, and Aristotle's law of identity is of metaphysics: the nature of actuality-reality REGARDLESS of your belief. So to conclude and summarize in order: 1. Metaphysics [reality]: existence, mind and identity. 2. Epistemology [truth]: but how can you know the above or anything , like the below? REason and logic. 3. Ethics [morality]: inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because above we identify that man has a mind that is potent, delimited, separate [to your brain] and finite [whereas existence is infinite]. Consciousness [above] identifies existence. This means a rational man can (and must) differentiate "no-thing" from something. That something is called "existence". A mental patient (irrational) can NOT do this - hence they can be confined to a prison/hospital. YOu are not confined which suggests you are not mental BUT can NOT yet reach proper conclusions with higher level concepts like in my posts. To reach proper conclusion needs you to learn, practice and master logic. A rational person has no choice but to do this. A irrational person can do whatever you like except evil (force or fraud). 4. Politics must be democracy: to protect your Sovereign rights identified in ethics. Economics has to be capitalism because an individual of a species that must use your mind to think and act to sustain your life; must as a result have a right to property. YOu must acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or property (e.g. hat, cat, mat, phone or money, etc.). A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without evil (force nor fraud). A prudent employer should offer the least and make another work the most. A prudent prospective contractee should try to do the opposite. Together one finds a meeting of minds - or moves on to find someone else with whom to trade. 5. Finally man's mind needs art: aesthetics. BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE (perhaps yourself) mix fantasy/fiction for reality! Deity believers. Simulation hypotheses (E.g. Matrix believers or religion of Jedi - a new age thing).

@101perspective

3 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain Yeah, I think my OP said basically the same thing... only more succinctly.

You are the most consistently interesting popular scientist on KZread. Thankyou.

Love your videos Sabine. Thank you so much for your work.

What amazes me all the time about her is her straight forwardness and bravery. Good job woman, keep it up!

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

YOU HAVE FREE WILL. Sabine is respectfully incorrect. BUT WHY? ​ Imagine A woman says you do not have free will. I told her: 1. Everyone has free will. However a mind-with-free-will itself is a sui generis: a unique entity with nothing like it in the known universe. It means your mind is "perpetual first cause". This means the universe is NOT deterministic since the advent of man. Man can create his own destiny (and as man is OF the universe it means that in totality determinism is incorrect). Man's mind however is first cause: so causality exists. 2. You can not say "you have NO free will". To say that OR thereafter say anything implies: i. Who is the "you"? ii. There is a person that is exercising free will to distinguish a wrong from a right using the methods of reason and logic to make a positive assertion. Therefore to deny free will is to deny the ability to distinguish a wrong from a right and defacto be wrong. 3. Your words suggest you think the mind is the same as the brain. Consciousness is the identification of existence. Consciousness is therefore a separate identity compared to the identity that precedes it called existence. Existence means something exists, anything ; and certainly "not no-thing". The above concepts means Aristotle's law of identity is so - there is truth (and this is it!) So we have Existence, mind and identity. How to know what is true? For example is what you are saying true or what I am saying true? The answer is the methods of reason and logic for reasons explained above. In conclusion : you are a human being and human beings have free will. For man to exercise the mind properly, distinguished from primitive man: man must learn, practice and use a method called 'reason and logic". This takes effort and is NEVER automatic. Man has two faculties of mind - and the other is emotions. It is very useful. It is NEVER the way to reach valid conclusion. Only with reason can you reach valid conclusion. Man needs a mind with free will to do induction. A computer does deduction and can be programmed to do that. A computer can NEVER do induction. The mind is non-computational, non-algorithmic. [Source: Penrose. He has mathematical reasons for this deduction. I have better reasons for this induction]. A computer can not engage in the work of a scientist. A computer can assist a scientist. To "do" science needs you to assume a mind so you can : 1. generate hypotheses; 2. set up and distinguish experiment from control ; 3. Interpret data and reach valid conclusions. Science can NEVER find a mind. Your mind must be assumed as an axiom. How is the mind "created"? No one knows and science can never find the mind. It may be that the mind is an emergent self organizing process that results from the total workings of the brain amongst other reasons. This is property dualism. But notice the word I put above is "may". The truth is no one knows. What we can say with absolute certainty is you have a mind with free will for reasons I put above.

@kyjo72682

3 жыл бұрын

What's so brave about it? Anyone can post almost anything on the internet these days, without much fear of persecution. At least if you don't live in authoritarian or theocratic countries..

@fatemehzahramajidi1271

3 жыл бұрын

@@kyjo72682 those who are in academia get what I say. It's very difficult to express your opinion this firmly when you are known. And she's not anyone on internet? :/

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

​@@dankbene Nah, I am extremely well read on this subject (the word "extremely" is put here because it applies). Science knows next to nothing about consciousness. That is because science is NOT metaphysics (but unconsciously YOU have made it into a RELIGION like Sam Harris and Sabine and the Horsemen: Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchen, Shermer, Krauss , etc.) The only way you get consciousness with free will is by assuming it to be true because upon this fact: Consciousness is the identification of existence. So it's a metaphysical "given". You can't deny it without denying your mind and conclusion so you'll always be de facto incorrect to deny the mind (With free will). You can't even 'create' it [you've watched too much sci fi and encoded it as if it can be done CmmdR. Data - huh ? Terminator? HER? Deus Ex Machina? Knight Rider? Who's your fiction? God? NO! You have turned Science into God!)

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

@@dankbene ​ I showed you that were you completely wrong a a weeks back. Let's summarize. ​ Sir Roger, the Nobel 2020 just now - he, Sir Roger Penrose says consciousness is real : offers proof such as intuition via Goedel’s theorem. I say consciousness real because you identify the identity that precedes it called existence . This means you can identify there is “something as opposed to nothing” . You can’t say God created something for reasons shown below . All you can say is “existence exists “ as the widest concept humanly possible . The ground floor . In fact God is perpetually fantasy fiction and fraud as it always triggers “reductio ad absurdum “. Logical error . Therefore the BIBLE is correct : god needs FAITH ( the same as belief in Mickey Mouse as a sentient larger character !!!!!!!) Emotions like faith ( feeling of certainty of meaning ) are the “wrong” tool to get to any conclusion else you’re left like primitive man or modern little child . The right way is logic : you need to learn this skill and it’s never automatic . Emotions are important and automatic but never the tool for reaching valid conclusion . Summary: 1. Existence exists 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence . You have free will . How ? Why? a. you can touch things (e.g. chair, rug, mirror , door) and state "something exists" as opposed to nothing if you're a rational man . A mental patient, A.I. /computer or animal can NOT do that. b. your sense organs send information to your mind and you interpret it. So the mind is real, pertains to reality and identifies existence. c. In fact the mind must therefore be separate to existence and potent (free will) to be able to do that. Free will is exercised to differentiate something from no-thing-ness. Even a blind,deaf and mute girl like Helen Keller realized that something exists! So existence comes first and consciousness that identifies it is a separate identity that comes next. But what this means is the next point . 3. Aristotle’s law of identity : there is truth . ( But how to identify any truth ? Reason and logic. And using that I have shown you that you are a mind with free will )

When I saw the title of this video I was, at first, reluctant to open it for viewing. I thought, "how is Sabine going to explain Consiencenese with Mathematics?". There was some interesting material presented. Thank you for putting the video together.

Your videos are extremely interesting, clear and dense of information!

She is one of the best teachers/explainers I've ever seen... heard,... read. I can share her little shorts with people who have NO background in science at all and she hooks them for me! Love her!

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

She is wrong. I have validated how you have free will. No one can "prove" free will just as you can not even prove there is 'Existence'. Therefore any Tom, Dick and Harry [Sabine, Sam Harris, Dawkins or Nick Bostrom] can make you believe there is "no existence" and you're a simulation. Add music and special f/x like the movie Matrix (4 is out this year) and you may just end up believing it. Add credentials to that like Nick Bostrom, Oxford Professor to the theorem and you may end up an adherent of scientific "religion". Instead you can "validate" there is the mind. The word "validate" is wider than the word "proof". Proof requires antecedent evidence. You can point to things around you like a chair, cat, mat, door and identify each as an existent of existence (without labelling them). There is something as opposed to nothing. That means existence exists. Let's start anew. ____________________ PART 2: Post 52: Sabine, and the Horsemen like SAM HARRIS WAS ALWAYS WRONG. ​ Remember consciousness is the identification of existence. So existence exists. Mind identifies the above. This means the mind is : -> potent: free will is exercised to distinguish nothingness from something. Your sense organs (e.g. what you see) can identity there is something. Labelled: existence exists. -> finite: whereas existence is infinite -> delimited to your life. Mind is not infinity nor the universe -> first cause! The universe is not deterministic as your mind is perpetual first cause. If existence is an identity and consciousness a separate identity then ARistotle's law of identity exists. There is truth. How can man know the above or anything to be true? The methods of reason and logic. To summarize in this order: existence , mind and identity. In fact the three words are the entirety of metaphysics [reality as it is, the key word : "is"] : existence, mind and identity. You can never "prove" metaphysics because proof requires antecedent concepts and there is nothing antecedent to metaphysics. You can validate the above such as your sense organs (e.g. eyes) validate there is something , and you're not in a floating nothingness. Even a blind, deaf and mute person (e.g Helen Keller) identifies there is existence indeed! Science is a methodology NEVER A METAPHYSICS. Science can NEVER find the mind NOR even existence. Too many scientists have become mystics - some buying into multiverse , others into simulation hypothesis. Science that is meant to protect against myth of religion has become religion.

Your associations and the combining of fields of science are awesome. Again(!).

@Me_549

3 жыл бұрын

Systems thinking

@RWin-fp5jn

3 жыл бұрын

Na she could be more provocative..Pouint and case: Lets examine the 'Coherent Quantum states of microtubules' according to Penrose. Well if we want to invoke Quantum states thereof (or a collection of Majorana states of its constituents) we are also invoking the option of quantum entanglement; meaning connectivity (locality) void of the need for bridging space and time. This of course opens up the effect of the 'consciousness' we experience as being 'our own', actually being at best a collective intelligence, not isolated to our individual human brain, but connected to either an isolated energy field (as an independent medium) or an instant connection (transportation medium) to other microtubules at other brains. So then, If we open up the can of worms of quantum states, then we must open the door to defining consciousness as being potentially the result of an outside connection, which even suggest part of this consciousness would 'survive' even after our highly valued brain in question has died. It would mean a human life is just about adding some collective neural network learning to a collective consciousness (hopefully to the greater good). OK. That's interesting. why not spent a lecture on distributed consciousness please? We don't need citing of other physicians, let Sabine come up with a few nice ideas herself. Be creative.

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

​ all eastern philosophy but western philosophy as well; and scientists that turn a BEAUTIFUL METHODOLOGY into Philosophy : Sabine, Sam Harris, Dennett and the Horsemen are completely wrong. Wrong! How so? There are 3 boxes of beliefs in the world that suck up all beliefs. BOX 1: MYSTICISM. BUNK. Whatever you feel because your culture or parents have told you this is the truth. You have not used critical thinking - but if you did - you'd fall out with family and culture (or be k*lled in many parts of the world historically). Agree? Box 2: Science or western philosophy that purports it IS metaphysics. This is also mysticism but with muscles. Science is EXCELLENT but it's a methodology NOT a philosophy. It's to "make maps" so you can navigate Mumbai BUT a MAP is NOT Mumbai. The map is not the territory. Scientists have made it the territory! Box 3: What I tell you below. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? ​ So what is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Metaphysics (what is reality, anyway?) Existence, mind and identity. How so? Consciousness is the identification of the identity that precedes it called existence. Existence is the widest concept even possible. One can't ask 'how did existence come to be' for that is to pre-suppose "Existence before existence". One can't ask for "proof" because that needs precedent evidence and there is nothing preceding existence! But you can point to things and exclaim there "is" existence. Existence exists, existed and will forever exists. Existence as opposed to "no-thing". Even a deaf, blind and mute person like Helen Keller that lives in a chaos became aware there is "existence" and stabilized her mind and went onto education and other good things. Many mental patients can NOT fathom there is reality and this is it. So in order : existence, mind and identity. Epistemology (but how do you know the above or any truth?) Reason and logic: perception and argument. Not your emotional titillations. Reason and logic is man's only way to reach valid conclusions like I do in my posts and in the 5 branches of the only correct, complete, concise, coherent and crisp philosophy. All other philosophy and philosophers were wrong. Some came closer to the truth like Aristotle. If Aristotle is my root then I am the shoot. The third branch of philosophy is: Ethics: inalienable rights. An individual that MUST think to sustain your life at every moment of life needs liberty to think and to act on the conclusions of your thinking to sustain your life. But man also lives to pursue happiness. By the way remember the correct way to think is reason and logic. A thought experiment of you stuck on a desert island will abstract the "virtues" [actions] you must undertake to sustain your life. This is ethics [rationality, productivity, pride, sex, happiness, selfishness, justice: reap what you sow; independence , honesty and integrity]. The fact you live amongst other men does NOT CHANGE ethics. Notice "selfishness: seeking your rational self interest" in ethics. Throughout human history the Monarch and his clergy (e.g. Pope, Mullah) needed you to be self-LESS : abdicate your self for the collective so they benefit off you as their servant. By 1776 it was abstracted from nature that all man is Sovereign - not just the dictator. So selfLESSness like altruism, collectivism and materialism such as enforced in any kind of socialism is wrong. All nations outside the U.S.A are wrong. The only correct way is "selfISHNESS" - seeking your rational self interest. The only evil is force or fraud because that takes away another's equal right . How to enforce this? See below! Politics: democracy to protect the above rights. Economics: capitalism - your right to property is from your right to life in ethics. All other animals come pre-adapted to a niche whereas man must by his identity "Re-adapt" the environment (invade it) to your values. Hence everything in your home - from the tiny in your smartphone or computer to the larger is smashed, fracked, extracted, mined, drill and from , of the environment from around the world , put together as value in a factory that you pay for (even reading this post - utility fees !!) Aesthetics: man needs art. Many mistake fiction for fact.

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

but Sabine is wrong. POST 51 to all academics and their sympathizers and apologists - you have a mind! There is danger of man "anthropomorphising" things. This is normal in mysticism: Indians "marry trees" ; other cultures hold elements or earth to be God or God like spirit. Commies do that with the politburo; Many republicans did that with Trump . The danger is not that people can do that with science, the danger is many people have already done that with science - it's now a huge industry : abstracting from science, generalizing and therefore running a O/S in the brain - post modernism or variation where: metaphysics is allegedly ejected , which is nothing but Plato (two realities, one is forever unknown) epistemology is science and math based reason and logic only - observation and/or math. This leads to string theory into multiverse theorem. Ethics and politics is a "useful fiction" to organize man . This is socialism and altruism evils like Australia or Canada (north of the U.S. border) Aesthetics includes monkey doing art or computer doing art The above is illogical and erroneous Implications and dangers including : returning land to aborigines giving aborigines more rights than other Australians here in the U.S , it includes deifying the environment and restricting industry and oil pipelines so that SOOOOOOO many are now out of jobs because of Biden and giving native Americans their "way" - preventing oil transport over their lands So if any scientist ever says "they don't care if there is consciousness [and by implication the rest of philosophy] - its because 1. with tenure, one does NOT have to care 2. with grants (often stolen money from wealth creators) - they do NOT have to care You sent Today at 8:38 PM The entire concept of academia has been given "rank" - which is unfair (immoral) to citizens in a society If academia is self financed or through business, largesse and estates then that is fine If it is stolen money (taxation leading to grants) then it is a travesty ------ ---- ​ Let's summarize all understanding then? 1. Existence exists. How do you know that ? You can point to things like a chair and say "something". In other words there is something as opposed to "nothing". But how do you know that? 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence. The above means the mind is "separate" identity to the other identity is identifies called existence. The mind must use free will to distinguish nothing from something in order to reach a valid conclusion. 3. If the above are both identities then it must mean Aristotle's law of identity is part of the fabric of existence. But how to know any "identity" - i.e. any truth? The methods of reason and logic. Using reason I have established you have free will. The mind is seperate, delimited, finite and potent. Delimited to your life. Finite but existence is infinite: exists, existed and will forever exist. Potent: free will must be exercised. Rationality is NEVER automatic. You must "Do" reason and logic. That makes NO GRAMMATICAL SENSE! Let me update: You must exercise FREE WILL to use reason and logic ;) ____________________ As a rational man you can Not deny the mind. With what would you be making this denial ? Hint: the mind! If you protest that your brain is making a denial then how does it "Switch" mode from acceptance to denial in anything? The brain is algorithmic. It can not exercise free will to differentiate wrong from right in order to reach conclusions. ALGORITHMIC things CAN do amazing things though like drive (switching gears) and grasp language like SIRI/CORTANA/HEY-GOOGLE , but it can not use reason and logic. Rationality is a uniquely human thing. The mind is sui generis: unique identity of existence. There is nothing like it. The mind is perpetual "first cause" when you exercise it. It is not "caused" by deterministinism . The universe is therefore NOT deterministic from the big bang (Laplace's Demon is wrong). BUT HOW? No one knows and no one can know! The mind is a axiomatic concept - and so is existence and identity. You must accept them if you are a rational man! Otherwise you can make up ANY fiction: God, Jesus, SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS, HOLOGRAPHIC existence holodeck (Susskind) hypothesis in ADS space; or many world version of multiverse splitting a million times per second or other multiverse theorems; or string theory. Or Santa Clause. Aesthetics (art ) is a cherished need of the mind. But NEVER mistake fiction for fact. I LIKE MULTIVERSE in the Avengers Marvel Comic movie or Dr. Strange. That is fiction. --- Yiu are... incorrect and in contradiction . You are wrong - again . If a rational person denies the mind - what are you using to make that denial ? Hint: your mind ! If you protest it’s your brain then how does an algorithmic brain *magically* distinguish wrong from right to reach a valid conclusion ? It can’t . Therefore the non algorithmic and non computational “mind” : a separate entity altogether must exercise *free will* to differentiate falsity from fact to reach correct conclusion using the methods of reason and logic . You have a mind . It has free will . ------- -> Consciousness is the identification of existence . That means distinguishes nothing-ness from something . Even a blind , mute , deaf person like Helen Keller eventually identified there is something via her mentor touching her to communicate and link feelings ( like running water feeling) to symbols. She realized she was conscious with free will . But youuuuu do not ? Stop being irrational psychotic . Stop it . You can use your sense organs : point to things ( like a chair) and notate there is “something “. That’s an “act” of consciousness exercising free will . The mind is a sui generis: a unique entity of existence . There is nothing like it . But you can’t deny it if you’re rational for reasons given above . Consciousness an axiom . You can’t ever prove it in science . The mind is perpetual first cause . The universe is therefore non deterministic. You determine choices exercising free will .

Very interesting. It seems there needs to be an agreed definition of consciousness for consistent measuring. For example, it may be an incorrect assumption (made in at least two of the theories presented) that consciousness should decrease or vanish in deep sleep or under anesthesia. In Eastern thinking it is the thinking mind that disappears but not consciousness itself as there is a distinction between mind and awareness that does not exists in western psychology or neurophysiology.

4:17 THAT expression is priceless. Serves him right!

This Channel gave Great Tutorials on Important Subjects , using Simple & Easy to Understand Method! Thank You So Much Teacher Sabine! Stay Safe & Stay Humble! 🕯🌷🕊

@AmericanBrain

2 жыл бұрын

POST 105! WOW! 105 POSTS SHOWING Sabine and Sam Harris, like many scientists denying free will are wrong. But worse, they are very dangerous like MR. BIN. How so? Isn't it all "innocent" or is there really more to it? Find out now! I’m thinking about what is your/their philosophical background [beliefs that filter your observations and thoughts] or are you one of those scientists that have the overt (albeit mistaken) belief that you don’t care about philosophy ; but without realizing that the question is not philosophy or no philosophy! What is the question in that case? ->> The question is correct philosophy or incorrect philosophy! I have told you the only correct complete consistent clear concise philosophy in mankind's history! Thus far your philosophies are David Hume’s "skepticism" : failed flawed fictional philosophy "because" if you follow it through to the end - then you become a "paralyzed" person in order to be logically consistent with skepticism! Think about it now! Think! The paradox is you are using “consciousness with free will “ in order to ask questions, make distinctions in asking questions, because you have a potent mind, a real mind. computers cannot do this. Computers can certainly be trained to simulate questions but there is no understanding of the questions that the computer asks. You are asking questions and evaluating my aunts is both actions of free will , Of consciousness. However it takes someone practice, learn and master the specific twin methods of reason and logic in order to competently use consciousness to reach valid conclusions, in analogy with a martial artist that must train pre-existing limbs in order to break bricks or slabs of concrete. Do you not understand? I repeat it in order to even evaluate the question I asked above needs an act of mind, and action of consciousness, and act free will to distinguish right from wrong. However do not forget the distinction that in order to do the evaluation properly needs man to overtly learn the methods of reason and logic which is first crystallized 2400 years ago. Let’s summarize and conclude: consciousness is the identification of existence. The fact that you can smell a rose or point to a painting and exclaim that something exists can be generalized to all things as: existence exists. But to repeat “how do you know how do you know that? “ Consciousness is the identification of existence. In other words you can indeed validate existence. And this is the word you’ve been looking for instead of the word proof. Therefore if one identity identifies a pre-existing identity then it follows that there exists Aristotle‘s law of identity: right versus wrong within the cosmos, of the cosmos. In other words man can discern existing patterns just like scientists do but philosophy is a higher level. This is what you have not understood until now. You can’t even even do any signs without philosophy, without assumptions and beliefs such as that is required to interpret data. In fact and in deed to even do signs such as to generate a hypothesis needs an act of consciousness, in this case induction. Computers cannot do that. The Nobel prize winner himself has proven in his own way that is different to mine using Goedel’s theorem that the human mind must necessarily be non-algorithmic And non-computational. So there you go! However he says it’s yet unknown signs. In contrast I am saying we can know it right now because man’s mind is potent. And the keyword here is: validate, validation, identification of existence. Consciousness is the identification of existence. So consciousness is real, of reality, pertains to reality. Metaphysics means the nature of reality. But how do you know that? How does mom get to know anything to be the truth? The answer is the methods of reason and logic. Computer is a blazing fostered logic but cannot used reason. But above I told you the mind is non-algorithmic and non-computational. What is it? Sir Roger has his own answer using quantum physics. But my answer is better. The mind as in consciousness identifies existence. ->>> Therefore the mind is potent, separate, delimited and finite. The mind is therefore perpetual “first cause” and the effect is an action such as act of free will or action of behavior of moving a limb.. No one in the history of books ideas or concepts has ever explain this to you since the beginning of time 14 billion years ago. You now have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Do you have the absolute truth. Q.E.D. ______ Denying free well is the root of evil. What is evil? Evil means the justification of force against "free man with free will".Such as? Such as Socialism or communism or monarchy or Christianity such as the Pope [dark ages]. People with Free Will started fighting people like you and will always fight people like you to the absolute end around 1776. You have to realize this. [Actually Oliver Cromwell tried in the U.K. but lost and failed to gain liberty]. At the end of the day your argument against other argument ends up in a war. There was always war. You are a theorist like MR.BIN, and his henchmen tried to enact war. One day "people like you" (not you necessarily) will have henchmen too. There are many people like MR.BIN (Bin himself did not harm anyone with his hands - but his hencemen follow the warped flawed philosophy of his; which is different to but has the same consequences as your failed un-identfied- flawed, Hume-anian (David Hume) philosophy). There will always be war. And people with free will , shall smash people like you in combat to achieve a society of liberty, of the free. What does that even mean? People with free will of course! You scientists want to treat man like atoms: but then you need a controller - communist State at worst OR EVEN DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM? Pure evil (means the use of force against free man to take his fairly begotten property such as taxation or restrict him by putting a dog's leash noose around his neck - restrictions euphemistically called regulations). University Professors love that - eating stolen money from the earner (tax payer) - money taken and redistributed to those that have not earned it or others in this case. Such as people like you became very strong in the Soviet days. Atheists communists socialists. 💥You were smashed. 💥 The triad of evil are : altruism-materialism/scientism- an- socialism. Altruism is the (forced) duty to give (by a forced social contract one did NOT sign but its thrust around one like an arranged marriage one did not consent, a r*p* of man). The good in contrast is : individualism, capitalism and liberty (as in democracy). Take your pick: free will "entails and necessitates" the good triad. Your warped perception also entails something - evil: whether Sweden or Cuba, North Korea, Nam ; or Australian "democratic socialism". But I notice people like you keep on rising up again throughout history getting smashed over and over again with it the Nazis (a national socialists ); or the other type of socialists of the red sort. Today a new virus is spreading around the world green Socialism such as with leaders that autistics such as Greta. _______________ ->>> I want you to know that mankind must smash the earth. This is because man has free will and using his free will man can and must by his very nature, his DNA, man must re-adapt earth to your values. All other species completely adapted to a niche environment. Man however must re-adapt the environment to his values because the man does not come born with claws, nor the strength of a gorilla, nor the fact of a bear, nor the speed of a cheetah, nor the roar of a lion. Man must use consciousness, his mind, active free will to decide wrong from right and therefore invent, induct hypothesis and test and therefore create things, tools such as a spear, such as clothes, such as discovering how to make fire, and from primitive man man continued to climb and rice right up to the discovery of the induction known as freedom or more specifically liberty in 1776. And All the way to today capitalism found, crystallized, exercised because this is all actions of liberty, which itself is truth Is an act of free well from individual man. People like you have existed throughout history in different Mystic forms, traditionally witches and mystics of the religious kind. Today mystics of the mind have transformed into mystics of the body like you: failed flawed philosophy of scientists. These people that deny free will. Yet paradoxically the very people who exercise consciousness, exercise free well to properly evaluate many things, but just not all things.

Now I understand the reason my hi-phi audio system behaves the way it does!

@landsgevaer

3 жыл бұрын

😂 Whilst I keep wondering about why-phi...

@Aurinkohirvi

3 жыл бұрын

That is one example where F in English wasn't replaced by PH.

@Aurinkohirvi

3 жыл бұрын

"HIgh FIdelity", not "HIgh PHIdelity".

@gammaraygem

3 жыл бұрын

A Hi-Phive for that joke!

@phillipneal8194

3 жыл бұрын

To paraphrase Michael Polyani, "All knowledge is Phiduciary"

This has been the best 11 minutes of my day. Thank you Sabine.

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

Ian and Y’all : ANOTHER BONUS! Folks, ​​ PENROSE IS WRONG. SABINE IS WRONG. BOTH ARE MATERIALISTS BUT WITH SEVERE VARIATION. So do you have a mind? Yes! What is the "reason and logic" behind that ? I told another Penrose fan: @Corteum9000 I like PeNROSE to be honest . However please bear in mind their theorem is what I call “possible “ ( not certain , not even probable ). . My philosophy is absolute : consistent , complete , comprehensive, correct . Please read it and take time - a few minutes more to fully grasp reality . Penrose is ultimate a mystic : he buys into Plato . Pure bunk . _____ ​ @Corteum9000 please read my longer post about reality . Penrose’s thesis is compelling . But he admits and of you scratch behind the surface : 1. It’s yet unknown physics ( actually it is unknowable! Even if you disagree : it’s unknown . That’s not science . It’s speculation ). 2. He is a physicalist . He says so . Materialist . 3. Quantum is intrinsically random : therefore helping overcome algorithmic universe : at that stage . But then what ? How does msn have consciousness ? It’s like 99.999% is unknown . Also how does intrinsic randomness lead to a efficacious consciousness? Penrose has nothing to say about free will . Nothing . 4. Penrose admits that a mysterious magical real exists : Plato where math is magically located . Pure mysticism to seal it . God is replaced by Plato . Both are mysticism . There’s more but I’m walking in 0C typing . _____ ​ @Corteum9000 Huge thanks for a brilliant analysis. I really like that. Please do master my original writing. Let's focus on what you said. 1. You use the word "theory". Penrose does not have a theory. A theory in it's philosophical technical sense is something that has been proven. Penrose has a hypothesis. It is one that is "extremely far from theory". I am a expert on Penrose/Hammeroff by the way. I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT for being a bold leap forward. There are some insights that even I use (i.e. to argue the mind is non computational, non algorithmic - because they give proof to establish this idiom). But being "honest": it is a mere hypothesis, a story that is "extremely far" from proof to a dangerous degree. The only thing that prevents it being categorized as fantasy is it has so-called testable hypotheses. But even those are "dangerous" because when someone puts down a testable set of items then it stands to reason they should be tested within a reasonable time to bring the hypothesis to conclusion. This makes it a hypothesis on thin ice. In fact we've hit a demarcation line! There is no such "line" . Normally such a hypothesis should be thrown in the trash because it is not literally being put to the test as the requisite equipment does not exist. The whole thing is a "mug's game". 2. I read everything you wrote and there is merit in what you say. I do not outright dismiss Penrose. Know this, out of the many hundreds of posts I have written, this may be the "ONE" or one of the extreme few I have taken the "opposite side" ! I do that to prevent myself from being a zombie ! However I do that honestly as well - demonstrating how I am honest above in my posts. _________________ Let me summarize my own thesis. Yes man has a mind. BUT the mind will NEVER be found and has NEVER been found in science nor Math ! Then how can we know man has a mind? Consciousness is the identification of existence. This means existence comes first. Existence is the broadest concept of reality. You can tell there is something , rather than nothing -like the Greeks started their number system realistically at "1". There is no "Zero" . The "zero" (nothing) is a mere mathematical (and very important) convenience. Interestingly the mystics has this idea in India where mysticism continues. So consciousness is a separate identity to the one that precedes it. This means the mind is "separate" to other items of reality , including the brain ! The mind is therefore "sui generis" : unique, novel entity. So existence, mind and these two identities suggest the third element is Aristotle's law of identity [there is truth]. How can man come to know any truth? Reason and logic. Isn't that obvious? No as man has two faculties of mind: the rational and the emotional. The emotions is automatic (faith, feeling, gut, intuitions ) etc. Rationality needs man to learn , practice and master reason and logic. This is a learned skill like driving, flying , typing, writing or reading! It is not instinctively to man. Yet in all things at all times, it is rationality that must lead. It takes effort and it is NEVER automatic! Too many use emotions to reach conclusions (gut) then "give a story" - backwards rationalization. How to overcome this as anyone can be trapped by this? Science and math help. These reach proto-truths: meaning the confidence level of truth is NEVER 100%. Only philosophy reaches complete truth at 100% certainty. Only my philosophy is correct because you can verify and validate it using a universal system: logic. ______________________ You can't ask "how existence comes to be" because to ask pre-supposes existence BEFORE existence: reductio ad absurdum, or logical error. You can "validate" there is existence (you can't prove it because proof needs antecedent evidence, so we use a word broader than proof called "Validate"). How does the mind come to be? Man doesn't know! However to to science, or put forward ANY statement about ANYTHING: including statements that admit or deny the mind; interestingly means to accept: 1. the statement is in reality: existence 2. made by a mind that can distinguish wrong from right using the methods of reason and logic , the only method to reach a valid conclusion! 3. The statement is asserting truth: an identity. Therefore and paradoxically there is no way out - if one is to be rational then there is always "existence, mind and identity" in this sequence! One can't even deny them! That said many DO deny one or more of them: but their "choice" is possible as man has free will, even if they deny it- but conclusion is incorrect as they are not apply reason and logic. For example today many people believe in the simulation hypothesis (another "s*xy theorem LIKE PENROSE's theorem - or let me be strict: all are hypothesis) . For example the renowned Susskind and Maldacena state if you're in ADS space (Anti DeSitter space) then it is possible that man is a holographic projection! There are other holographic theories - and the movie MATRIX is a great fantasy. In fact such theories are nothing but Plato's cave delusion reincarnated (Plato was likely on LSD drugs at the time in my research. That does not therefore make it incorrect: it's the logic that is incorrect). Simulation hypothesis that deny reality end up in infinite regress just like the deity hypothesis. Who "created" the simulation computer ? Who created the creator of the creator ? Infinite regress: error. __________________ So there is existence, mind and identity. The mind is one with free will, an integrated whole. This must be assumed to state anything to be true. It must even be assumed to "do" science because the scientist must: - generate hypotheses (induction: uniquely human. Computers do not do induction) - separate experiment from control - interpret and reach valid conclusion on the data using reason and logic (needs free will to distinguish falsity from truth). And defend this thesis amongst the barrage of expert peers of the highest calibre in academia and journals! The mind exists as an identity. I am the only person in history (perhaps amongst a sliver of others) that grasps and hereby explains you have a mind with free will as a human being during your life . The mind is finite (not infinite such as existence which existed, exists and will exist into infinity). _________ Consciousness is the identification of existence . One can validate there is something , anything but a something using your senses. Touch something . I label it existence . This is an “ostensive” definition . There is nothing preceding existence so one must use an ostensive definition . There is no proof as proof requires antecedent evidence . But we can use the word “validation”- wider than proof . So what establishes there is existence ? Your mind ! So your mind is a separate identity to existence . This means Aristotle’s law of identity is implied and invoked to be true . In other words the entirety of metaphysics- reality is : existence , mind and identity ; in this sequence . But his to know any identity, any truth ; develop any valid knowledge ? The methods of reason and logic . Indeed using this I demonstrated the components of metaphysics . --- You can not deny one , two nor the three components. Today simulation hypothesis denies this is reality ! So they fall into a reality before reality : infinite regress , error . Who created that earlier reality ? Many others deny a mind . But with what do they use to make a denial ? The mind ! Also Without a mind - how do you even ascertain you are correct in forming any conclusion ? You don’t and you can’t ! Therefore your conclusion is defacto in error ! Get it?

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

I wrote you back in detail to you that you have free will and no choice in this matter. A.I. is algorithmic and therefore has no "Choice" . Sir Roger proves using Godel's theorem to show man's mind is non-algorihtmic , non computational. I state it is a unique novel self emergent entity with potency that arises from the underlying mechanism (the brain, the body). To deny free will is to deny you can form valid conclusions and therefore you were completely wrong as you can't even know what is right without free will. Free will needs to be exercised to differentiate wrong from right, falsity from fact, fiction from truth and reach valid conclusion. This takes effort. A computer can not do that. I also stated that in man free will is part of the mind: an integrated whole. Consciousness is the identification of existence that precedes it. Therefore man and only man can do that and if rational reach the conclusion there is existence (although today simulation hypothesis denies this is reality -and like the God delusion- both fall into infinite regress - error). Existence and mind are separate identities so we invoke Aristotle's law of identity. There is truth and we can know it using reason; exercising the mind actively using free will as stated above. Note: whereas those that deny free will are forever wrong (because of reasons stated above); in contrast those that free will are NOT defacto correct. They must also use the correct method - and use the method properly : exercising free will by using the method of reason and logic . ___________ The next PART IS A BONUS. It was written to another person but thought you may enjoy how the mind: conscious and subconscious work. ​ "I am well apprised of the subconscious . 1. Choices connected to genetic predispositions? What are you talking about ? Where is evidence for this that is scientifically valid? Let's assume you are correct for now such as epigenetics. I have always said that emotions are automatic; equivalent to the subconscious operations you talk about. I have further stated that man must learn, practice and master rationality. And then it takes effort to use rationality (the methods of reason and logic) in a scrupulous manner. One's biases are irrelevant in the sense that the logical method is "universal". Man must always lead with rationality (use reason and logic) in all things at all times. Emotional conclusions are triggered by one's experiences to date; and I am going to allow your concept of "genetic predispositions". In fact below we even go into "brain hemispheric pre-disposition like left or right brain" ! Urgent side note: mystics use the word subconscious in an incorrect way to argue for nonsense like collective consciousness , psychic phenomenon or "cosmic mind" malarkey or even God whispering in you (schizophrenia). Note 2 : there is no collective consciousness not in the way that Jung stated. There are however cultures and 'memes' like viruses that infect minds and therefore a collective group of people can entertain the same idea such as love of expensive "Nike" shoes even when it is not in their budgetary interests (in contrast to other trainers without brand name). Memes work on the hidden brain. ____________ 2. I think I went into operations of the subconscious in some detail in my earlier post? Was that earlier post to you or to another ? I went into detail about left and right brain and patients that have it severed (I did not mention they were Gazzaniga's patients]. Subconscious is nothing but the working of the brain "outside of conscious" awareness. Therefore in the example with patients that had hemispheres cut off from one another; the brain hemisphere (left or right) generates a mind - but one mind at any one time in the conscious attention (and then they may toggle hemispheres). My point is: there is a seperate "mind" , and whether patient or normal person, the "mind' is dependent on the underlying machinery - but in the human , the mind is nevertheless "potent" and separate from the underlying machinery. In analogy: the wetness and fluidity of water experienced by man at the macro level is a result of the massive interaction of H20 molecules at the micro fine grain level. The fluid properties are "emergent". However there is a difference between the water and the mind. With the mind, the "emergence" is strong, whereby the new properties (mind) is distinct and different to the underlying properties upon which it depends. Secondly the mind itself is potent : it's able to condition / recondition the underlying property within limits. The mind is "sui generis"- a novel and unique entity (nothing like it in the entire cosmos to compare it to if one is to be precise). In conclusion: I have not denied the subconscious. I have acknowledged it; and stated it is the working of the hidden brain. I call that the underlying mechanism (or to use a metaphor: machinery). I go into that above. ___________________ 3. Here's somethings new. A. How the brain forms concepts. Is this subconsciousness? Yes. At all times in all things, from baby onwards the growing child is continuously learning using the uniquely human characteristic called mind. The child see a " dog, mother, table, yellow inexpensive baby plastic chair and big red antique expensive wooden chair". ->>> The child's brain uses 'concept formation theorem' to witness two or more percepts that are similar, isolate their essential common characteristic into a concept, and differentiate this concept from all other concepts; whilst dropping the measurement characteristic. The above is a very important paragraph: it is how all man comes to grasp innumerable concepts; and only man uses concepts to understand reality. The Child therefore looks at the two chairs, dropping the fact they are large/small, expensive/cheap, wooden/plastic, red/yellow; and other measurement characteristics" - and integrates them into one unit. At some point the unit , the concept is labelled as "Chair". The child/person forever does this: for example the child looks at the table with the chair, and at some point integrates the "two concepts" into one using the method stated above; and labels it as one concept "furniture". Growing child will continue to do that whereby furniture gets integrated with other concepts such as dog, mother, kitchen, living room and so forth into the concept "house" and the different concept "home" . For example - the family can live in a very different house yet still call it a "home" even if the dog is now missing for various reasons . Man takes the vast number of concepts within him for granted. But in a short version here you get to realize how many forms and uses concepts to grasp the nature of reality . The above is ongoing and subconscious. But man gets many concepts wrong like the earth is not flat. Man must therefore use the methods of reason and logic to re-evaluate concepts and reach valid conclusion, valid concept. This is the process of learning , and critical thinking. ___________ Secondly to address subconscious some more. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge of "how man gets to know any truth'. The methodology is above. The method to know the truth is reason and logic. With epistemology, everything must be right; separated from wrong. With a new word: psycho-epistemology : one can look at and play with methods to gain insight, integrate concepts or imagine. Such as imagine how you may invent a flying battery operated car that is affordable to become the next Elon Musk. So psycho-epistemology is the mechanism that forms concepts. Perhaps this answers your question about subconscious operations as well. Summary : Man's brain (hidden brain, subsconscious) is always learning: forming concepts. Man forms concepts by "->>> witnessing two or more percepts [items: objective or intangible ] that are similar, isolate their essential common characteristic into a concept, and differentiate this concept from all other concepts; whilst dropping the measurement characteristic. At some point man labels it by a word. Many concepts are wrongly formed and man must use the methods of reason and logic to differentiate them: such as differentiating lust from love; mere s*xual encounters from the concept of romantic love (which only arrived in the renaissance era). Therefore man's conscious mind interacts with his subconscious to recondition it often. ____________ More notes. All species take in sense datum and that self organizes as percepts: units of perception stored as memory. Even the single cell amoeba. The species reacts to the environment using percepts. Man however self organizes percepts into concepts in parallel and automatically [except autistic man comes closer to percepts]. Concepts are "perceived regularities". Man's brain automatically forms concepts. Concepts are the lens through which man's sees reality. But man must use the methods of reason and logic to form (or reform) correct concepts such as a Penguin is a bird; or a Whale is a mammal ! The subconscious and conscious are interacting to arrive at an output.

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

Post 44! Sam Harris and Sabine is wrong about your mind. But how so? PUZZLE FOR YOU . A man said to me the below [do read it] "Existence requires time. Space-time was created in the Big Bang, so before that, time was absent and the word existence is meaningless. A different model is needed, perhaps one that incorporates quantum fluctuations. Absolute truth is unreachable due to Heisenberg Uncertainty, but we still have practical truth which incorporates probability. Ethics and morals are not absolute, but are relative to the survival and prosperity of our species, humanity." QUESTION: WHY IS THE MAN WHOLLY INCORRECT? HAVE A THINK THEN READ ONWARDS. I REPLIED TO HIM: Thanks so much for reply. I will address every issue, and point I can squeeze out from your words to do you greatest most respect. Okay? 1. Existence does not by necessity require time. In fact the evidence both philosophically (what really matters) and scientifically is against this! Consciousness identifies existence. This means existence existed, exists and will forever exist. One can't ask "how did existence come to be?" Because that is the presuppose "existence before exists" a contradiction. Time is a measurement characteristic. Does time exist ? I have not come to a definite conclusion yet. It's a great question! And there is no reason that there as a conventional big bang. That's a "Story". Man does not know (in science) IF there was a big bang. Man knows things a billionth of a billion seconds after the purported big bang but in this case it does not mean a "big bang" in the conventional sense. Also something can not come from no-thing. 2. Existence is not yet understood by you. To say existence is meaningless is to assert you are de facto stating falsity. On which "dimension, realm" are you even asserting a purported truth? Whatever your answer, it is within "some" existence. So existence exists. Today there are many that say there's X% chance you're in a simulation. This is error just like deity is error. It is presupposing existence BEFORE existence, and throwing things in to infinite regress, reductio ad absurd-um (absurdum): error of logic. Further you can not deny Objective metaphysics: existence, mind nor identity. To even form an argument in denial means you must ASSERT that there is existence (see above) and you have a mind that is capable of reaching a valid conclusion [that needs a mind with free will to distinguish and differentiate wrong from a right using a known method called logic - i.e. there is identity]. So metaphysics [actuality-reality]: existence, mind and identity in this order. 3. You said "Absolute truth is unreachable due to Heisenberg Uncertainty" a. that means what you are saying is de facto WRONG. If it is not truth then it is wrong. So you are in check mate. Furthermore you are generalizing a principle of science , in this case quantum physics to the entirety of reality - something that even Heisenberg [the Nazi scientist that was in charge of building the Nazi atomic ] did NOT EVEN SAY ! YOU ARE SAYING IT. Pure bunk. He PROBABLY would have given you a black eye and bloodied up nose . Do you agree? b. Although quantum physics is intrinsically uncertain (Bell's experiment) nevertheless it does not "therefore" mean that reality is free from causality. In fact it is impossible to be free from causality [see point 1 above]. What you have not distinguished is determinism from causality .Listen carefully: whereas determinism needs causality, in contrast causality does not need determinism. The mind is necessarily perpetual first cause at all times in all things when you make decisions at every moment of your life. Furthermore, "from underlying causality", man gets the "emergence" of quantum physics AND general relativity. A toy model that is excellent to grasp this is Stephen Wolfram's "New Physics" [see his items - his "rule" for this]. Wolfram would argue that quantum physics is pseudo-random: meaning it is intrinsically and forever random to the human , and man can not know the next step with certainty for any particle but it is following a computational rule. So it is EPISTEMOLOGICALLY RANDOM but not METAPHYSICALLY. This distinction is CRUCIAL . Man does not know and can NOT know how quantum particle will behave but it is following some law. Bell 's experiment seems to argue otherwise stating quantum mechanics is intrinsically random. If that is the case, then it may be random at that emergent level but it is emerging from something deeper [there is a larger body of physicists that argue this]. What is the truth though? Philosophically there is order - there has to be otherwise you would NOT exist as a consistent pattern nor be able to grasp anything. 3. If ethics and morals (HEREINAFTER called ethics) are not absolute then you can do the most savage disgusting things to your own family and to little kids . INDEED many MANY MANY people, particularly Catholic Priests have a history of doing this already. You are once again incorrect. Ethics for man is "burnt into the cosmos" just as man himself is. How so? All species come pre-adapted to a niche environment. Man however is a definitive identity (homo sapiens sapiens - just so you know) and must re-adapt the environment to himself to even survive . Man is an individual of a definitive species that "must" exercise free will to think* and act in order to survive at every moment of your life. Further more there is correct thinking versus incorrect thinking (right versus wrong : Aristotle's law of identity in metaphysics - see above). Man can know what is right using the methods of reason and logic. There is no other way: reason is man's only way to reach valid conclusion. Therefore man by his very nature (in the cosmos as he is of the cosmos) possess the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means you can NOT USE FRAUD OR FORCE against fellow man. It also means fraud or force "is" evil. Man needs a government to protect the above rights. The above rights exists "burnt into the cosmos"" for the species "homo sapiens sapiens" - JUST LIKE THE SPECIES CALLED "fish" MUST SWIM [and can NOT live on land outside a body of water - that is also burnt into the cosmos]. And to remind you : "Fish" is an identity, and Aristotle's law of identity is of metaphysics: the nature of actuality-reality REGARDLESS of your belief. So to conclude and summarize in order: 1. Metaphysics [reality]: existence, mind and identity. 2. Epistemology [truth]: but how can you know the above or anything , like the below? REason and logic. 3. Ethics [morality]: inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because above we identify that man has a mind that is potent, delimited, separate [to your brain] and finite [whereas existence is infinite]. Consciousness [above] identifies existence. This means a rational man can (and must) differentiate "no-thing" from something. That something is called "existence". A mental patient (irrational) can NOT do this - hence they can be confined to a prison/hospital. YOu are not confined which suggests you are not mental BUT can NOT yet reach proper conclusions with higher level concepts like in my posts. To reach proper conclusion needs you to learn, practice and master logic. A rational person has no choice but to do this. A irrational person can do whatever you like except evil (force or fraud). 4. Politics must be democracy: to protect your Sovereign rights identified in ethics. Economics has to be capitalism because an individual of a species that must use your mind to think and act to sustain your life; must as a result have a right to property. YOu must acquire, maintain, dispose or trade your services or property (e.g. hat, cat, mat, phone or money, etc.). A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without evil (force nor fraud). A prudent employer should offer the least and make another work the most. A prudent prospective contractee should try to do the opposite. Together one finds a meeting of minds - or moves on to find someone else with whom to trade. 5. Finally man's mind needs art: aesthetics. BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE (perhaps yourself) mix fantasy/fiction for reality! Deity believers. Simulation hypotheses (E.g. Matrix believers or religion of Jedi - a new age thing).

@robinac6897

3 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain I bet you're one of those pretentious high-speed gabblers that no-one actually bothers listening to.

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

​@@robinac6897 but you listen, yes? What is spirituality anyway ? Spirit means pertaining to the mind . Then what is the mind? See below. ---------- I read and you would love Israeli author : YUVAL HARRIRI , SABINE, SAM HARRIS, HITCHENS, DAWKINS, DENNETT , SHERMER AND OTHER SCIENTISTS - and YUVAL'S book on his brief history of everything. He has many talks online. BUT BUT BUT NOTE: like most academics he is a materialist - meaning 'everything is matter; human beings are zombies of sorts; and the political system should be socialism'. So his interpretation of many facts are WRONG but the overall writing, talks and theme is "very very interesting" Be aware of not being hypnotized by him. In contrast THE CORRECT COMPLETE CONCISE COMPREHENSIVE COHERENT philosophy : man does have a mind. But one can only induct that as an axiom. There is no "proof" for proof requires antecedent evidence. ->> Consciousness is the identification of existence. So existence first, mind second Aristotle's law of identity third. Consciousness (an identity) identifies existence (another identity). That means the mind is real, separate to the brain, efficacious (free will), finite and delimited to your life. Finite? Whereas existence is infinite: existed, exists and will forever exists. You can NOT ask "how did existence come to be" for that is to presuppose "existence BEFORE existence" a logical contradiction! You can only induct "it is, it was, it will always be". The verb: to be (but NOT the Shakespeare phrase "to be or not to be ") ! Delimited: Deepak Chopra says consciousness is infinite and it is the universe peeking back on itself through you! Deepak is the primacy of consciousness: everything is consciousness or "God's mind or his fart". In contrast above is the primacy of existence : existence first. How does the mind come to be? One can not know as it is an "Axiom". In math axioms are every where. But this is not math. Axiom is something one assumes. But it is not an arbitrary assumption . To state "there is no mind" is to beg the question: "how do you know, as in what faculty are you using to reach this conclusion?" We come back to "the mind" ! So one has existence, mind and identity - this is the entirety of metaphysics [reality as it "is" - the word "is" or verb "to be"] A cat is not a dog. A Whale is not a fish. You are NOT mere matter even though you're made of matter. Everything has an identity. Truth. But how to know it? See below. But how do you know the above OR come to know ANY truth? The methods of reason and logic [this is called epistemology in philosophy. The only correct philosophy what I have said because you can use a universal method to verify and validate it - logic. All others are sometimes interesting BUT WRONG] So what is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the whole reality as it "is" [to be] ? Metaphysics: existence (see above) Epistemology [how do you know truth]? Reason. The above leads to ethics. An individual of a species that can think and MUST think to sustain your life must by nature have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So evil is the use of force or fraud against another as they are also equal and Sovereign citizen under the law. Liberty to indeed think and act on the conclusions of your thinking! For what? To sustain your life! Life and Liberty. But humans also live to thrive, not just to sustain a (mundane) life [else one gets depressed!] IN CONTRAST, ALL OTHER SPECIES come pre-adapted to sustain their life : plants and animals (e.g. blubber of a polar bear, their claws, camo and teeth!) What is the correct form of government and economics? Based upon the above: it must be democracy - a government to protect your ethical rights identified above using it's arms like civil courts, military, and the police. But what is the correct economic system and why? Capitalism [identified by BRITON - ADAM SMITH - that ended up as the backbone of the formation of a new nation in 1776- U.S.A !!!] Above you see every species comes pre-adapted to a niche environment. BUT MAN must use his mind to think properly (reason and logic) And act in order to sustain his life. Man must by your design of nature - READAPT THE BLOODY ENVIRONMENT TO YOURSELF ! INVADE THE ENVIRONMENT WITH REASON! From first creative man that put on clothes ; discovered and created fire; created tools [remember those caveman picture books at junior school ? ] From the cave to YOUR LIFE TODAY - every tiny and bigger "thing' was and is of the environment that's been "readapted" for your use that you pay for directly or indirect - from behind the walls, under the floors, under the hood of your smartphone or bathroom to all the things in a house or on the streets. Entire cities or villages are man that has readapted nature to YOUR value! Man's property rights are a self evident truth that stems from ethics: your right to life. Man needs to acquire, maintain, dispose OR TRADE your property or services (e.g. hat, cat, mat, iphone or money). A trade is a meeting of minds between two people without force or fraud: such as prospective employer-employee or seller-buyer. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN MAN'S BELIEF LIKE TRADE! ALAS IN MOST DEMOCRATIC (AND OTHER ) NATION PEOPLE UNAWARE clamor for socialism - as if big brother government "magically" knows what is BEST FOR YOUR LIFE. How can any "one" know what is best for you - it's hard enough to know what is best for "oneself" for Christ's sakes!!! The above principles led to the richest self made men in history by 1900s in the U.S.A. ! More than entire Monarchs throughout history THAT you STUDIED in history class - pillaging and wars ! Finally man needs aesthetics: good art. The WHOLE OF CORRECT PHILOSOPHY: So metaphysics: existence epistemology: reason ethics: inalienable rights politics: democracy - and economics: capitalism. aesthetics: good art

I am smiling and I am intrigued by your summary, thank you. I have just to little faith in current efforts to understand consciousness to due the general lack of thereof (this is riddle within a riddle). Anyway, as always, it was a pleasure listening to you.

Fantastic succinct summaries of multiple cognitive theories. I'm glad you mentioned Penrose's microtubules idea. One comment : the fact that a patient is not interacting doesn't mean they are not having conscious experience (wrt epileptic seizures and sleeping); they are not conscious of the world, but they may be having the type of conscious experience that I believe you're trying to pin down. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, as "consciousness" is an overloaded term.

Love your videos - really great explanations and very interesting!

I dont really see what quantum effects give you towards consciousness other than randomness, but that would be at a tiny scale. Surely temperature fluctuations are going to dominate and be a bigger factor of random noise.

@zzubra

3 жыл бұрын

I think the logic is “consciousness seems magical” and “quantum mechanics seems magical” so “let’s try to explain one in terms of the other.” It seems to be a profoundly dubious logic that results from failing to take a clear look at the subject matter without resorting to magical thinking.

@cogoid

3 жыл бұрын

@@zzubra That's pretty much it. We are still struggling to understand how the worm functions with its 302 neurons -- for which the entire circuit diagram has been known for over a decade. But at the same time, lots of people are supremely confident that they have a correct intuition regarding what human brain can and cannot do by conventional means.

@henrikljungstrand2036

3 жыл бұрын

The key with quantum is entanglement. Non-local properties. But even classical systems are conscious, although less so than quantum systems, because they are less coherent.

@henrikljungstrand2036

3 жыл бұрын

What is randomness? Is this not the same as (constrained) "free" will? So a coherent state caused by random fluctuations might be the same as the conscious expression of will.

@henrikljungstrand2036

3 жыл бұрын

@@zzubra Quantum effects are magical. So are magnetic fields. And electric currents. Living physical organisms are magical. So are crystals. Water is magical. Superconductors are magical. Computers are magical. Placebo is magical. Meditation is magic. Just because we can explain something scientifically doesn't mean it is not magical.

Super nice talk !! I like too see Physicist that care to argument their own pov's, with that much elocuence only makes it better!

Fascinating.. what I liked with the Penrose-Hameroff idea was the the study of what turns consciousness off, don't know if the micro tubules are involved but it's interesting that we don't know exactly why these chemicals work

Great video! Seems like entropy minimization is a common feature of all of the cosmos, especially where intellect and consciousness are found. Amazingly you can look in any direction in a 360° sphere and see beauty and organization everywhere. Near and far, from chaos comes complex ordered patterns. What force perpetuates it? It's awsome!

@calculuslover2078

Жыл бұрын

Not really entropy minimization, but utilizing low entropy as an opportunity to create complex structures. Low entropy ≠ complex, sunlight has very low entropy and not complex at all, but that low entropy allows life to exist.

I always had the feeling consciousness might rely on entropy, as some emergent virtual system. I fall into these thoughts, when I try to create proper simulations, that have emergent qualities. A game which would be fun to explore, like procedural programming, but without the feeling, that you can realize it being created, by you, and with dynamics that marvel you. It always feels like the only true way to create artificial consciousness however seems somehow like trying to reach and understand something, that is infinitely far away. Like a narrator that tells you a new and truly engaging story, which you never actually wrote, and can't even comprehend, how your simulation reached that conclusion, somehow being the only way, that you truly would believe you have finally created it. Programming itself already shows, that creating an artificial simulation on very basic hardware can get emergent qualities, like in artificial worlds, like game of life. But finding systems that have these interesting qualities is hard enough, so I am not surprised some are trying to explain creativity as well in this realm. We have to face the possibility however, that we cannot mathematically explain consciousness, but learn very much by trying to do so, trying to explain ourselves, maybe even animate it to evolve in our collective whatever we are doing right now.

I thought I was watching this because I chose to be entertained by Sabine and her take on the state of peoples understanding of physics. Little did I know that It was predetermined that I would be watching this tonight. I can’t wait to see where this leads me to next.

As a philosopher I would also ask the reverse question, what is the nature of unconsciousness and how can we know what is unconscious? If all energy is conscious as I suspect then all mass would be unconscious, change would be consciousnesses, stability would be unconciousness The brain might be that mass which CONFINES individual consciousness so that we are NOT aware of the general consciousness which after all does not relate to OUR survival, there is ample evidence that the brain is primarily an EXCLUSIONARY device, it filters OUT unnecessary irrelevant awareness! Energy connectivity would suggest connectivity of consciousness, the relative energy independence of living things with respect to the environment such as the ability to maintain needed internal states despite external threats would suggest a certain energy independence, which could also suggest independence of consciousness for living things. Life forms might then be characterized as separated from the general consciousness rather than the only example of consciousness. Its as if in a life form a fragment of the general consciousness is walled off and isolated temporarily in each cell, including brain cells. Each person is unaware of nearly everything in some characteristic manner which leaves behind a PERSONALITY, the totality of our deficits as individuals is who we are to others, the characteristic unconsciousness is different for every individual but unconscious quirks are usually how other individuals differentiate them. I assume every cell is conscious and that they can share that consciousness just as when two humans interact they influence each others consciousness., the simplest assumption is that the self is a result of that kind of sharing, conversations are break downs in the isolation of energy/information

@tantrispicks2440

Жыл бұрын

Good insights.

I'm pleased to see that you brought up Penrose & Hammeroff's theory. Most hardcore scientists like to brush it off as fluff since the woo-culture clung to it so fervently. It''s unfortunate that the research they have done is so quickly dismissed simply because of the disposition of those who cling to it - not because of the scientists in the lab working on it. I applaud you for mentioning them :) Sure, their theory has a few problems - but that should be decided on the merits of their research - not the caliber of onlookers.

A bit too reductive. The question is, what do we mean by conscious? I experience it as an internal conversation and awareness of self. Is a worm conscious?

@genmapi

3 жыл бұрын

And can it be measured?

@dijojohn38

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dr.Z.Moravcik-inventor-of-AGI This is the dumbest of takes.

@LuisAldamiz

3 жыл бұрын

Consciousness at its most basic level is perception (input and its "passive" processing) and in this sense machines like robots and computers, and of course basic forms of life like cells, are somewhat conscious. That's a low level of consciousness but it's consciousness nevertheless. There's another aspect of the mind which is more proactive or "creative" and that I would not call consciousness but volition (willpower). In the human (or animal) brain this is most clearly seen near the central cissure where the reception of inputs from the body is behind and an almost perfectly simetrical "command center" for outputs is before that line. In very broad terms our consciousness lays in the back of the brain, while volition (and also apparently reason, at least partly so) lay in the frontal part. Every "mind" even a very simple one like a computer or a bacterium has that duality, which must of course work as an integrated whole. However in psychology the term conscious is also used in contraposition to unconscious, in this case meaning aware and unaware. We do have a consciousness (perception) that is unconscious (unaware, subliminal), there's no need to be strictly aware of everything (sometimes that lack of awareness comes at a cost but most of the time it'd be to costly to be aware of everything, we'd get stuck into excess complexity, which is a problem that AI faces at times: so many details, which ones do matter?)

@darrennew8211

3 жыл бұрын

I think a more interesting question is whether a self-driving car is conscious. It's aware of itself. It has predictions about what other cars will do, including what they will do in response to its own behavior, so a theory of mind. It is integrating a great deal of information. It's doing a job that until now only conscious beings have been able to do. We can examine what it's doing; it will tell us why and how it's making the decisions. How would you argue that a self-driving car cannot be conscious?

@LuisAldamiz

3 жыл бұрын

@@darrennew8211 - Agreed. It's a form of consciousness, "lesser" if you will but clearly conscious.

My hypothesis, Consciousness is an emergent property of a system whose parts exchange information with each other (great phi) and which maintains input-output relationships with other systems. This phenomenom can arise at different scale levels (a system can be composed by a collection of little systems).

Thanks Sabine. It will be interesting when we start to be able to make some predictions!

Thank you Sabine! Your efforts are very valuable. The way you explain the gist of the state of the art of human knowledge in different sciences in simple understandable words is extremely valuable. I cannot even imagine how much time it would take me to understand this much of useful information from first hand scientific papers or talks. Thank you; and you are a great teacher!

Quote:-"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud".

@tahunuva4254

3 жыл бұрын

I cannot explain why you wouldn't cite the quoter, so Imma go out on a limb and call fraud :P

@ninomeloni9671

3 жыл бұрын

@@tahunuva4254 Of course, you can finish as you wish. Logically. No problem at all. Best regards!

@DarkMeta_Minecraft

2 жыл бұрын

meanwhile.. flat earthers exist 😂

Sabine!! You're awesome!! Thanks for being you!

Thx for dealing with that interesting topic of consciousness.

Great video, congratz! Do you have the source of the math about how calculating Phi would take 10^9 years in a 300 synapses worm? I'm really interested in seeing how sb arrive at that conclusion.

I watch physics videos, therefore I am.

@nickolasgaspar9660

3 жыл бұрын

the problem arises when physicists try to talk about biology...

@aa-theone

3 жыл бұрын

@@nickolasgaspar9660 On the other hand a biologist would not even be able to begin to talk about physics! to them it's all rocket science.

@nickolasgaspar9660

3 жыл бұрын

@@aa-theone I guess you never heard Lawrence Krauss saying " I chose Physics over Biology because Physics is simple".

@fto5935

3 жыл бұрын

@@aa-theone Lol that's not true at all. Biologist need to take several physics and biophysics classes as part of their curriculum whereas physicist don't have any biology and sometimes not even chemistry lectures... Also "rocket science" is a stupid term because it's about the most simple field of STEM there is.

I just came across your channel and got to see a few of your videos! So far, I love the clear and concise explanations! Here is what I came to say. There are several fundamental incoherences (play on words intended) in discussing a mathematical model of consciousness. I've written the following two short Quora answers a couple of years ago. I'm happy to discuss further in much greater depth. Very smart people can wrack their brains with interesting theories about consciousness, but if all of this rests on philosophical absurdities on a foundational level, then all of those efforts will necessarily be fruitless. I believe that a rigorous argument can be presented demonstrating this (and I would be prepared to present it), but here is a simple and brief sketch of it in a Quora answer I wrote in 2017 and another shortly after (probably sometime in 2018). Incidentally, the second was in answer to the very question of "is there a good mathematical model of consciousness?" Hope this is helpful: (1) www.quora.com/Do-you-think-consciousness-or-subjective-experience-is-a-fundamental-property-of-the-universe/answer/Sherif-R-Fahmy (2) www.quora.com/Is-there-a-good-mathematical-model-of-consciousness-e-g-for-simulating-it-with-computers/answer/Sherif-R-Fahmy

@ChrisJohnsonHome

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting article Sherif! Essentially you're saying "Since I can't think about anything outside of my experience, consciousness must be a fundamental part of reality". However I find it likely that your mind and my mind are a similar phenomenon. This means we're both experiencing something, but we're seperate. You're experiencing something outside my experience, and I'm experiencing something outside your experience. And it's conceivable that you could watch me lose consciousness. (For example I could fall into a deep vegetative coma.) So it seems that: 1. There is a reality outside of your mind, which includes my consciousness (unless you deny my existence which is laughable to me since I personally experience it on a day to day basis just as you do). 2. My consciousness can also stop working. (Unless you deny that I could fall into a coma). So in summary: There is an external reality, and in that reality consciousness can stop working, and therefore consciousness is not fundamental to reality.

Sabine thank you! Your videos are amazing but the "Penrose Pout....." priceless.

For integrated information, would probability wave (quantum) of information increase integration and consciousness? In general, are waves better at integrating information than particles?

F-z-s-s-t: physicist. Love the German pronunciation. No vowels needed. Very efficient. ;)

@rousedabout

3 жыл бұрын

The longer I listen, the more German I feel. I think it's Stockholm Syndrome effect!

@josephgrossenbacher7642

3 жыл бұрын

for some swiss peeps speaking nice dialects , it sounds awful & horrible when germans speak english & their french is even much worse , which does , by no means , say that swiss peeps are "good" in pronouncing _any_ foreign language , rather , that sounds "funny" ... !!!

@flaminghulaballoo

3 жыл бұрын

@@josephgrossenbacher7642 I think it was the author Robert Heinlein who described the sound of spoken German as being like molasses flowing uphill.😉

@josephgrossenbacher7642

3 жыл бұрын

you might be right 'here' ,@@flaminghulaballoo , it sounds indeed like "strangers in strange land" when they "speak" ... !!!

@skyteus

3 жыл бұрын

And how do you pronounce it? xD

Building on becoming more aware of unconscious processes, I discovered how to communicate with those processes through action intentions and sensory feedback about a decade ago. I actually communicate with those subconscious processes, and teach others how to do it too. Those subconscious processes live their own lives, just like we do. They think in different ways though, and lack a lot of problem solving skills and such. They also lack a lot of external agency over their own body. However, their makeup is one of layers of consciousness. They purposefully wire together to form more complex decision making systems, to solve more complex situations. However, one can still communicate with the constituent parts as isolated entities. They can also wire together other consciousnesses to solve new problems brought to their attention. I still have no idea what consciousness is or how it physically functions, but it isn't a simple matter of determining how one consciousness exists in the human body. The nervous system is a consciousness machine that solves every problem by putting a consciousness on top of it. Those consciousnesses are made of smaller consciousnesses, which are made of even smaller consciousnesses. Each has their own inpurts, outputs, memories, and decision making. Those get simpler the further down you get. At the bottom level are very simple consciousness units with default instructions. It's interesting getting to know their world. I find it hilarious that it kind of makes the problem of consciousness worse. There's a lot more consciousness to explain with the same physical material.

@shogun9450

10 ай бұрын

Look up dissociation theory about the One into the many in philosophy, I love your explanation man thank you

@ZahraLowzley

8 ай бұрын

Nope. Stating "subconscious" (pop psych lunacy) refutes claim.

@sadanyagci

8 ай бұрын

@@ZahraLowzley I don't like the term subconscious. I use it because people relate to it. Technically it's conscious. Just not our conscious. It's weird

@ZahraLowzley

8 ай бұрын

@@sadanyagci please excuse my abrupt tone in my first message, but recently I am troubled by both the definition of consciousness changing (it used to refer to a physiological state, which was fine and explanatory, now it's pushed into meaninglessness), additionally having tested the claimed "A.I" I regret by lifelong respect for scientific pursuit because it isn't close to it's description, it's painfully generic and doesn't satisfy any of my Turing tests. I cannot explain why programmers consider it life-like without implying that the programmers are equally artificial, but the detachment is confounding. It described perception as a computation but could explain what it lacked if it were mere computation. I really don't understand what's up here but that scientists refer to cognition as computation necessarily indicates having no experience of perception. I don't "think in words" , but thought is not discontinuous but rather a cascade which is incompatible, I can chart how language indexes it, I don't consider this a language as it is typologically remote. You know, so much of pop psych is bizaar, such as "wanting to be right", I really don't care about "truth" or "unifying theories" etc, but I have friends whom are or were working scientists, who ask about my ideas on GIA, naturally assuming a thought or two, rather than a point-to-point blueprint of materials, it's not insight or knowledge it's because I'm alive and don't think computationally , life can reproduce and offload faculties and certainly doesn't require computation axioms. Additionally pattern recognition is not a formative mode of differentiation but iv not met a single scientist who can think of them, let alone model them, of which there are a few. It's all a little daunting. I have never guessed "God" but I have thought... Anamorphic permutation generator. I asked the AI why that'd be important , I didn't know, which is astounding as the bottleneck issue is basic stuff. I also don't think this is a simulation is it doesn't require anything like that because perspective orientation adheres to a simple deviation condition. I'm actually a music teacher , but my music theory includes the physics of harmonic theory and the cognitive basis of its differentiation, I had to create a system of temporal geometry to explain false differentiation predecated upon the measurement system . Anyway, I have friends who are scientists and I tell them that I'm fine being friends with a computer but they clearly don't experience perception.

Consciousness - including reflective self-consciousness, our sense of self - is a metaphenomenon of the activity of the brain. Consciousness is the "song" embedded in the sonic waveform. Sabine, you are a brilliant teacher.

@grandlotus1

3 жыл бұрын

The activity of the brain gives rise to consciousness via an analog process of comparing incoming sensory waveforms with stored waveforms in the "subconscious" brain. The brain and consciousness are not digital.

@rajarsi6438

3 жыл бұрын

When you leave the body the brain starts decomposing, like the rest of the body.

@Some_Deist

Жыл бұрын

@@grandlotus1 No it doesn’t

@grandlotus1

Жыл бұрын

@@Some_Deist Your eloquence has convinced me. Please, go on.

i really like the small looks at the camera!

@MechanicalMooCow

3 жыл бұрын

Wot

@superwhuffo1

3 жыл бұрын

Ha! Especially at 4:17 😆

@tomditto3972

3 жыл бұрын

Penrose has referred to Hossenfelder as rude, and here she has reserved the amusing aside for his theory. Others do not receive this disrespect. One could argue, therefore, that his idea stands out. In fact, she does NOT touch on Penrose's ideas. The complaint is about the sustainability of quantum states in microtubual structures. That's not Penrose. It is the work of his colleague. Penrose needs something like the purported physics of microtubuals for his ideas which Sabine has not touched. These are quite intriguing. First, he says, "Consciousness is not a calculation." An example is that musicians performing familiar musical pieces do not think about what their fingers are doing. That is unconscious. They think about the expression they can apply when their fingers move "automatically." Decisions are made. Penrose has the idea that decisions require the same sort of break in quantum states that we see in the effects of observation on an entangled particle. A decision is made. If you consider the simultaneous number of choices that constitute our conscious decision making, the size and behavior of microtubuals present a playing field where the emergence of decisions can proceed. What a reader should do is examine the process he postulated BEFORE he was presented with a possible physical embodiment in the brain that could sustain it. In effect, he made a prediction that may be possible in a physical medium.

@Xandros999

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomditto3972 A criticism of Penrose's Orch-Or would be a video of its own. That said, I do think it's deserving of ridicule: It's a "collect underpants"- theory inserting a component that doesn't seem necessary, doesn't seem to be real, and does not credibly give rise to consciousness either way. It's just quantum mysticism.

@tomditto3972

3 жыл бұрын

@@Xandros999 Penrose is his own experiment of being conscious in a manner that is worth investigating. For example, he thinks visually about mathematics. In some of his descriptions of how ideas form, he refers to his emotions. If this is collecting underpants, please enlighten us.

I found a doctor willing to try to upload my consciousness to a computer. He said I needed to bring my own storage system, stating: "A 1MB flash drive should do it." I apologize for my crude humor. Thank you Sabine. It's always a pleasure to join you on Saturday mornings.

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

You can't upload. The mind is not algorithmic. All readers, listen carefully - > "neither science NOR MATH" can never find free will. But you have free will! YOU HAVE FREE WILL. How so? Firstly, I believe in free will. But whether I believe or not is "not of importance" as I could be tossing a coin to reach a argument for you. You'd never know! Man has a universal system to know what is true. That is the methods of reason and logic. Using such reason you will see that you have free will. You ultimately have no choice but to believe. I don't think you understand: science is a methodology Not a metaphysics, Not a philosophy. So science has not and will NEVER find free will/mind. The mind (with free will) must be "assumed' as an axiom. Do you understand what an axiom is ? If you deny mind (with free will) then you immediately fall into "logical error". So you can Not even deny it. Let's try: If you say "I have no free will". Then who is the "I" that says this? How does that "I" know this to be true if you have "no mind"? Without a mind, there is no way to know what is true in the first place! To know what is true, man must exercise the methods of reason and logic to differentiate truth from falsity by exercising free will. You have no choice otherwise you could program computers to do the "reason and logic" . Computers are algorithmic. Your mind is "non algorithmic, non computational" (source: Sir Roger Penrose proves this using Goedel's theorem). So what is the truth? Metaphysics: the nature of reality regardless of your perceptions of reality> 1. Existence exists. This is an identity. 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence.This is a separate identity that IDENTIFIES there is something, anything but something - labelled as "existence". 3. Aristotle's law of identity [truth] must necessarily exist by implication. But how does man come to know any truth? The methods of reason and logic.

@vr5076

3 жыл бұрын

Have come across a video game called SOMA? There is a scene in the video game in which the scenario you described more or less takes place.

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

@@vr5076 It does not take place at all. ​Let me explain in detail.. I prove you have a mind to the "absolute" degree (100% objective certainty). Penrose uses Goedel's theorem to make the point that the human mind can do something distinct and distinguished from algorithmic systems like a computer. For example - Penrose states the ability to use induction in mathematics. Penrose goes onto other proof as well such as comparing man using Goodstein's theorem compared to a computer (which gets stuck). Penrose argument is "secondary" And not as strong as my "absolute" argument. This is because math Nor science is primary. This shall explored below along with other points and arguments made by another. I told another : ​ @black_star ​ @black_star you said POINT 1 : "you really don't need free will to have reason and logic. I think that's where you don't understand the argument" AND you said POINT 2 : "Also I just want to point out that a mind and free will are in no way mutually exclusive. Obviously we have minds, but that doesn't mean there's something transcendent (non-biological) about them. They're all biological processes affected by environments. There's no "free" involved in the sense I think you talk about. Everything else is the same, you just have to reconstitute what the term "I" really means." ________ About POINT 1 above. Yes you need reason and logic to exercise free will otherwise you can get computers to do it at today's incredible speeds and achievements. They have logic - but not reason. They can not perfect induction; only deduction. They can not generate hypothesis Nor act as "general purpose" like the human mind. You are therefore asserting a "feeling" but feeling is not the method to reach conclusion (see below). Your "feeling" is based upon pre-existing and incorrect prejudices such as "faith: a FEELING of certainty" in science! In Sabine or Sam Harris ! The only method to reach valid conclusion is reason - not emotions. This was explored in detail repasted far below. ________ About POINT 2 above where I quoted you. In the mind of (rational) man: consciousness with free will are both "one entity". There is no dichotomy. In other species (as explained earlier and repasted below): there is "awareness" but no free will; only "reaction to the environment". Man however can "act" - not merely react. Act or actions include the ability to induction and also have humor and creativity (the distinctly human type - which is different to simulated-creativity that computers can engage in a limited way). Also you believe (incorrectly) that the mind "is the brain". The mind is a separate identity (as I explained before but did not elaborate until now). How does the mind come to be? No one knows. The lack of knowing does not "therefore disqualify" the identity, the entity known as mind (unless Science is your metaphysics, your philosophy, your RELIGION and therefore Sam Harris your deity. Alas too many have turned a "brilliant methodology" called science into a religion). But what is known - is that you have a mind that is separate identity to your brain. It "may be" that the mind is due to property dualism: the vast interaction of the brain results in this entity, this identity called mind. But this sui generis: potent quality with free will is able to reprogram the brain itself. There is nothing like it in the known cosmos . You're using that very mind to "understand" the content of this post. _____ ​ @black_star UPDATED. ​ @black_star Do mice "identify" there is existence as a separate identity? No. One needs a rational being to do that. The human being. All species have consciousness though: "Awareness" that they interact by reacting with the environment including single cell bacteria. The consciousness exists on a continuum that is usually (but not always) equivalent to the hierarchy of species (exceptions to the rule include octopus, pigs, dolphins that show great intelligence). All species (including man) takes in sense datum and that self organizes as percepts: units of perception. This forms memory. Man however concurrently re-organizes percepts into concepts. Concepts like "love" , "nation", "President", "borders" and so much more [that man live for and even risk their lives for!] . Concepts are real (pertain to reality as it is , have identity) even though their are NOT mere percepts such as "land borders" or "love" . A growing child sees two or more existents (of existence) and integrates them whilst dropping the measurement characteristic; and distinguishing the new concept from all other entities.. Existents like a : a big red wooden chair, a child's yellow plastic chair, a table, a dog and their mother. The child's brain 'abstracts" the concept of chair (withOut even labelling it) by looking at two or more existents that are alike and 'dropping the measurement characteristic" (such as size, color, material etc.). The mind "self organizes" - integrates the concept into an identity. A some stage this identity is given a label: "Chair". I told you "A growing child sees two or more existents (of existence) and integrates them whilst dropping the measurement characteristic; and distinguishing the new concept from all other entities." The child distinguishing "chair" from all other things like dog or mother. Man's brain does all the above automatically. But with higher level concepts man gets many things wrong (e.g. earth is not flat). Man needs to deliberate learn, practice and use the methods of reason and logic to find out what is true (i.e. the earth is not flat, nor even the center). Man has 2 faculties of mind: rationality and emotions. Both are very important. Emotions are always automatic. Rationality is never automatic. The method to use rationality properly is reason and logic. This takes practice and is always manual gear. It takes effort. In the previous post I identified you have free will using reason and logic. I had said: "All readers, listen carefully - > "neither science NOR MATH" can never find free will. But you have free will! YOU HAVE FREE WILL. How so? Firstly, I believe in free will. But whether I believe or not is "not of importance" as I could be tossing a coin to reach a argument for you. You'd never know! Man has a universal system to know what is true. That is the methods of reason and logic. Using such reason you will see that you have free will. You ultimately have no choice but to believe. I don't think you understand: science is a methodology Not a metaphysics, Not a philosophy. So science has not and will NEVER find free will/mind. The mind (with free will) must be "assumed' as an axiom. Do you understand what an axiom is ? If you deny mind (with free will) then you immediately fall into "logical error". So you can Not even deny it. Let's try: If you say "I have no free will". Then who is the "I" that says this? How does that "I" know this to be true if you have "no mind"? Without a mind, there is no way to know what is true in the first place! To know what is true, man must exercise the methods of reason and logic to differentiate truth from falsity by exercising free will. You have no choice otherwise you could program computers to do the "reason and logic" . Computers are algorithmic. Your mind is "non algorithmic, non computational" (source: Sir Roger Penrose proves this using Goedel's theorem). So what is the truth? Metaphysics: the nature of reality regardless of your perceptions of reality> 1. Existence exists. This is an identity. 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence.This is a separate identity that IDENTIFIES there is something, anything but something - labelled as "existence". 3. Aristotle's law of identity [truth] must necessarily exist by implication. But how does man come to know any truth? The methods of reason and logic. THIS IS MAN'S ONLY WAY TO REACH PROPER CONCLUSION. Emotions are important to follow through on the conclusions of logic. But many men do not learn how to use reason and logic and are merely stuck as reacting with their emotions .

@vr5076

3 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain I am talking about the sci-fi horror video game called SOMA...

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

@@vr5076 I don't know it . But I answered others: When I say "you have no choice but to believe" , in this context I am saying that "if you are a rational man, using the methods of reason and logic , exercising free will to distinguish truth from falsity in order to establish the truth" then you are forced to "objectively" come to the believe based upon reason and logic that you have free will. This is because that is the only valid conclusion (for reasons repeated below when I answer several other people's questions). I am advocating free will, but not contradicting it. I am stating that you "do have a choice" at all times in all things, such as to dismiss "valid conclusion" and merely 'react using the emotions" subjectively. But above I am saying if you are Objective instead of subjective then you will reach valid conclusion for the right reasons. This week so many reacted , ignoring the truth that there's a free and fair election that nominated a new President - and they reacted in an unprecedented way, titillated by emotions. But those that exercise reason (which is never automatic) using free will will reach the correct conclusion. _____ ​ @Engineering Philosophy Science has never found a mind despite massive efforts. It shouldn't really be that difficult at all. Absolutely "no sign" of mind has been found. In fact the OPPOSITE HAS BEEN FOUND : how man hallucinates he has a mind using back story (rationalization). This is very easy to test in labs. Also Libet's experiments and variations over 30 years have shown strongly that man is his brain: a philosophical zombie, a biological bot. So how to establish you have a mind? Science can never do it. I told another few people : UPDATED FOR YOU WITH A BONUS. But listen carefully - > "neither science NOR MATH" can never find free will. But you have free will! YOU HAVE FREE WILL. How so? Firstly, I believe in free will. But whether I believe or not is "not of importance" as I could be tossing a coin to reach a argument for you. You'd never know! Man has a universal system to know what is true. That is the methods of reason and logic. Using such reason you will see that you have free will. You ultimately have no choice but to believe. I don't think you understand: science is a methodology Not a metaphysics, Not a philosophy. So science has not and will NEVER find free will/mind. The mind (with free will) must be "assumed' as an axiom. Do you understand what an axiom is ? If you deny mind (with free will) then you immediately fall into "logical error". So you can Not even deny it. Let's try: If you say "I have no free will". Then who is the "I" that says this? How does that "I" know this to be true if you have "no mind"? Without a mind, there is no way to know what is true in the first place! To know what is true, man must exercise the methods of reason and logic to differentiate truth from falsity by exercising free will. You have no choice otherwise you could program computers to do the "reason and logic" . Computers are algorithmic. Your mind is "non algorithmic, non computational" (source: Sir Roger Penrose proves this using Goedel's theorem). So what is the truth? Metaphysics: the nature of reality regardless of your perceptions of reality> 1. Existence exists. This is an identity. 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence.This is a separate identity that IDENTIFIES there is something, anything but something - labelled as "existence". 3. Aristotle's law of identity [truth] must necessarily exist by implication. But how does man come to know any truth? The methods of reason and logic. THIS IS MAN'S ONLY WAY TO REACH PROPER CONCLUSION. Emotions are important to follow through on the conclusions of logic. But many men do not learn how to use reason and logic and are merely stuck as reacting with their emotions . _____________________ BONUS! I had objections and counter arguments that I answer below. Above, I prove you have a mind to the "absolute" degree (100% objective certainty). Penrose uses Goedel's theorem to make the point that the human mind can do something distinct and distinguished from algorithmic systems like a computer. For example - Penrose states the ability to use induction in mathematics. Penrose goes onto other proof as well such as comparing man using Goodstein's theorem compared to a computer (which gets stuck). Penrose argument is "secondary" And not as strong as my "absolute" argument. This is because math Nor science is primary. This shall explored below along with other points and arguments made by another. I told another : ​ @black_star ​ @black_star you said POINT 1 : "you really don't need free will to have reason and logic. I think that's where you don't understand the argument" AND you said POINT 2 : "Also I just want to point out that a mind and free will are in no way mutually exclusive. Obviously we have minds, but that doesn't mean there's something transcendent (non-biological) about them. They're all biological processes affected by environments. There's no "free" involved in the sense I think you talk about. Everything else is the same, you just have to reconstitute what the term "I" really means." ________ About POINT 1 above. Yes you need reason and logic to exercise free will otherwise you can get computers to do it at today's incredible speeds and achievements. They have logic - but not reason. They can not perfect induction; only deduction. They can not generate hypothesis Nor act as "general purpose" like the human mind. You are therefore asserting a "feeling" but feeling is not the method to reach conclusion (see below). Your "feeling" is based upon pre-existing and incorrect prejudices such as "faith: a FEELING of certainty" in science! In Sabine or Sam Harris ! The only method to reach valid conclusion is reason - not emotions. This was explored in detail repasted far below. ________ About POINT 2 above where I quoted you. In the mind of (rational) man: consciousness with free will are both "one entity". There is no dichotomy. In other species (as explained earlier and repasted below): there is "awareness" but no free will; only "reaction to the environment". Man however can "act" - not merely react. Act or actions include the ability to induction and also have humor and creativity (the distinctly human type - which is different to simulated-creativity that computers can engage in a limited way). Also you believe (incorrectly) that the mind "is the brain". The mind is a separate identity (as I explained before but did not elaborate until now). How does the mind come to be? No one knows. The lack of knowing does not "therefore disqualify" the identity, the entity known as mind (unless Science is your metaphysics, your philosophy, your RELIGION and therefore Sam Harris your deity. Alas too many have turned a "brilliant methodology" called science into a religion). But what is known - is that you have a mind that is separate identity to your brain. It "may be" that the mind is due to property dualism: the vast interaction of the brain results in this entity, this identity called mind. But this sui generis: potent quality with free will is able to reprogram the brain itself. There is nothing like it in the known cosmos . You're using that very mind to "understand" the content of this post. _____ ​ @black_star UPDATED. ​ @black_star Do mice "identify" there is existence as a separate identity? No. One needs a rational being to do that. The human being. All species have consciousness though: "Awareness" that they interact by reacting with the environment including single cell bacteria. The consciousness exists on a continuum that is usually (but not always) equivalent to the hierarchy of species (exceptions to the rule include octopus, pigs, dolphins that show great intelligence). All species (including man) takes in sense datum and that self organizes as percepts: units of perception. This forms memory. Man however concurrently re-organizes percepts into concepts. Concepts like "love" , "nation", "President", "borders" and so much more [that man live for and even risk their lives for!] . Concepts are real (pertain to reality as it is , have identity) even though their are NOT mere percepts such as "land borders" or "love" . A growing child sees two or more existents (of existence) and integrates them whilst dropping the measurement characteristic; and distinguishing the new concept from all other entities.. Existents like a : a big red wooden chair, a child's yellow plastic chair, a table, a dog and their mother. The child's brain 'abstracts" the concept of chair (withOut even labelling it) by looking at two or more existents that are alike and 'dropping the measurement characteristic" (such as size, color, material etc.). The mind "self organizes" - integrates the concept into an identity. A some stage this identity is given a label: "Chair". I told you "A growing child sees two or more existents (of existence) and integrates them whilst dropping the measurement characteristic; and distinguishing the new concept from all other entities." The child distinguishing "chair" from all other things like dog or mother. Man's brain does all the above automatically. But with higher level concepts man gets many things wrong (e.g. earth is not flat). Man needs to deliberate learn, practice and use the methods of reason and logic to find out what is true (i.e. the earth is not flat, nor even the center). Man has 2 faculties of mind: rationality and emotions. Both are very important. Emotions are always automatic. Rationality is never automatic. The method to use rationality properly is reason and logic. This takes practice and is always manual gear. It takes effort.

This is typically a philosophical discussion, so interesting to see a physicist talking abt it

@schmetterling4477

Жыл бұрын

Philosophy has been bullshit since 500BC. It doesn't become any more intelligent by physicists talking about it.

Excellent presentation young one. Now I shall try to bring a level of consciousness back to this ancient body. Thank you

Why should quantum states of microtubules in cells have anything to do with consciousness? What is the causal connection? Single celled organisms have microtubules. Is an amoeba conscious?

@cogoid

3 жыл бұрын

I think people are grasping for straws with that microtubules story. It is pretty clear that there are many situations where humans are not conscious while there is nothing wrong with their microtubules.

@ThePowerLover

3 жыл бұрын

Well, we don't have true causal connections between the brain and the mind either, mere correlation...

@cogoid

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThePowerLover The causal connection between the brain and the mind has been established already in antiquity by observing what happens when people get their brains bashed out.

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

Why? I can explain but I'll do better. All readers, listen carefully - > "neither science NOR MATH" can never find free will. But you have free will! YOU HAVE FREE WILL. How so? Firstly, I believe in free will. But whether I believe or not is "not of importance" as I could be tossing a coin to reach a argument for you. You'd never know! Man has a universal system to know what is true. That is the methods of reason and logic. Using such reason you will see that you have free will. You ultimately have no choice but to believe. I don't think you understand: science is a methodology Not a metaphysics, Not a philosophy. So science has not and will NEVER find free will/mind. The mind (with free will) must be "assumed' as an axiom. Do you understand what an axiom is ? If you deny mind (with free will) then you immediately fall into "logical error". So you can Not even deny it. Let's try: If you say "I have no free will". Then who is the "I" that says this? How does that "I" know this to be true if you have "no mind"? Without a mind, there is no way to know what is true in the first place! To know what is true, man must exercise the methods of reason and logic to differentiate truth from falsity by exercising free will. You have no choice otherwise you could program computers to do the "reason and logic" . Computers are algorithmic. Your mind is "non algorithmic, non computational" (source: Sir Roger Penrose proves this using Goedel's theorem). So what is the truth? Metaphysics: the nature of reality regardless of your perceptions of reality> 1. Existence exists. This is an identity. 2. Consciousness is the identification of existence.This is a separate identity that IDENTIFIES there is something, anything but something - labelled as "existence". 3. Aristotle's law of identity [truth] must necessarily exist by implication. But how does man come to know any truth? The methods of reason and logic.

@ThePowerLover

3 жыл бұрын

​@@cogoid That's just correlation my friend.

"warm and wiggly environment" Love that!

@herwighuener3256

3 жыл бұрын

"warm and wiggly environment" - I have seen this formulation somewhere else, long ago, but I cannot recall, where.

@tedarcher9120

3 жыл бұрын

Also moist

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

ANOTHER BONUS! Folks, ​​ PENROSE IS WRONG. SABINE IS WRONG. BOTH ARE MATERIALISTS BUT WITH SEVERE VARIATION. So do you have a mind? Yes! What is the "reason and logic" behind that ? I told another Penrose fan: @Corteum9000 I like PeNROSE to be honest . However please bear in mind their theorem is what I call “possible “ ( not certain , not even probable ). . My philosophy is absolute : consistent , complete , comprehensive, correct . Please read it and take time - a few minutes more to fully grasp reality . Penrose is ultimate a mystic : he buys into Plato . Pure bunk . _____ ​ @Corteum9000 please read my longer post about reality . Penrose’s thesis is compelling . But he admits and of you scratch behind the surface : 1. It’s yet unknown physics ( actually it is unknowable! Even if you disagree : it’s unknown . That’s not science . It’s speculation ). 2. He is a physicalist . He says so . Materialist . 3. Quantum is intrinsically random : therefore helping overcome algorithmic universe : at that stage . But then what ? How does msn have consciousness ? It’s like 99.999% is unknown . Also how does intrinsic randomness lead to a efficacious consciousness? Penrose has nothing to say about free will . Nothing . 4. Penrose admits that a mysterious magical real exists : Plato where math is magically located . Pure mysticism to seal it . God is replaced by Plato . Both are mysticism . There’s more but I’m walking in 0C typing . _____ ​ @Corteum9000 Huge thanks for a brilliant analysis. I really like that. Please do master my original writing. Let's focus on what you said. 1. You use the word "theory". Penrose does not have a theory. A theory in it's philosophical technical sense is something that has been proven. Penrose has a hypothesis. It is one that is "extremely far from theory". I am a expert on Penrose/Hammeroff by the way. I LOVE IT! I LOVE IT for being a bold leap forward. There are some insights that even I use (i.e. to argue the mind is non computational, non algorithmic - because they give proof to establish this idiom). But being "honest": it is a mere hypothesis, a story that is "extremely far" from proof to a dangerous degree. The only thing that prevents it being categorized as fantasy is it has so-called testable hypotheses. But even those are "dangerous" because when someone puts down a testable set of items then it stands to reason they should be tested within a reasonable time to bring the hypothesis to conclusion. This makes it a hypothesis on thin ice. In fact we've hit a demarcation line! There is no such "line" . Normally such a hypothesis should be thrown in the trash because it is not literally being put to the test as the requisite equipment does not exist. The whole thing is a "mug's game". 2. I read everything you wrote and there is merit in what you say. I do not outright dismiss Penrose. Know this, out of the many hundreds of posts I have written, this may be the "ONE" or one of the extreme few I have taken the "opposite side" ! I do that to prevent myself from being a zombie ! However I do that honestly as well - demonstrating how I am honest above in my posts. _________________ Let me summarize my own thesis. Yes man has a mind. BUT the mind will NEVER be found and has NEVER been found in science nor Math ! Then how can we know man has a mind? Consciousness is the identification of existence. This means existence comes first. Existence is the broadest concept of reality. You can tell there is something , rather than nothing -like the Greeks started their number system realistically at "1". There is no "Zero" . The "zero" (nothing) is a mere mathematical (and very important) convenience. Interestingly the mystics has this idea in India where mysticism continues. So consciousness is a separate identity to the one that precedes it. This means the mind is "separate" to other items of reality , including the brain ! The mind is therefore "sui generis" : unique, novel entity. So existence, mind and these two identities suggest the third element is Aristotle's law of identity [there is truth]. How can man come to know any truth? Reason and logic. Isn't that obvious? No as man has two faculties of mind: the rational and the emotional. The emotions is automatic (faith, feeling, gut, intuitions ) etc. Rationality needs man to learn , practice and master reason and logic. This is a learned skill like driving, flying , typing, writing or reading! It is not instinctively to man. Yet in all things at all times, it is rationality that must lead. It takes effort and it is NEVER automatic! Too many use emotions to reach conclusions (gut) then "give a story" - backwards rationalization. How to overcome this as anyone can be trapped by this? Science and math help. These reach proto-truths: meaning the confidence level of truth is NEVER 100%. Only philosophy reaches complete truth at 100% certainty. Only my philosophy is correct because you can verify and validate it using a universal system: logic. ______________________ You can't ask "how existence comes to be" because to ask pre-supposes existence BEFORE existence: reductio ad absurdum, or logical error. You can "validate" there is existence (you can't prove it because proof needs antecedent evidence, so we use a word broader than proof called "Validate"). How does the mind come to be? Man doesn't know! However to to science, or put forward ANY statement about ANYTHING: including statements that admit or deny the mind; interestingly means to accept: 1. the statement is in reality: existence 2. made by a mind that can distinguish wrong from right using the methods of reason and logic , the only method to reach a valid conclusion! 3. The statement is asserting truth: an identity. Therefore and paradoxically there is no way out - if one is to be rational then there is always "existence, mind and identity" in this sequence! One can't even deny them! That said many DO deny one or more of them: but their "choice" is possible as man has free will, even if they deny it- but conclusion is incorrect as they are not apply reason and logic. For example today many people believe in the simulation hypothesis (another "s*xy theorem LIKE PENROSE's theorem - or let me be strict: all are hypothesis) . For example the renowned Susskind and Maldacena state if you're in ADS space (Anti DeSitter space) then it is possible that man is a holographic projection! There are other holographic theories - and the movie MATRIX is a great fantasy. In fact such theories are nothing but Plato's cave delusion reincarnated (Plato was likely on LSD drugs at the time in my research. That does not therefore make it incorrect: it's the logic that is incorrect). Simulation hypothesis that deny reality end up in infinite regress just like the deity hypothesis. Who "created" the simulation computer ? Who created the creator of the creator ? Infinite regress: error. __________________ So there is existence, mind and identity. The mind is one with free will, an integrated whole. This must be assumed to state anything to be true. It must even be assumed to "do" science because the scientist must: - generate hypotheses (induction: uniquely human. Computers do not do induction) - separate experiment from control - interpret and reach valid conclusion on the data using reason and logic (needs free will to distinguish falsity from truth). And defend this thesis amongst the barrage of expert peers of the highest calibre in academia and journals! The mind exists as an identity. I am the only person in history (perhaps amongst a sliver of others) that grasps and hereby explains you have a mind with free will as a human being during your life . The mind is finite (not infinite such as existence which existed, exists and will exist into infinity). _________ Consciousness is the identification of existence . One can validate there is something , anything but a something using your senses. Touch something . I label it existence . This is an “ostensive” definition . There is nothing preceding existence so one must use an ostensive definition . There is no proof as proof requires antecedent evidence . But we can use the word “validation”- wider than proof . So what establishes there is existence ? Your mind ! So your mind is a separate identity to existence . This means Aristotle’s law of identity is implied and invoked to be true . In other words the entirety of metaphysics- reality is : existence , mind and identity ; in this sequence . But his to know any identity, any truth ; develop any valid knowledge ? The methods of reason and logic . Indeed using this I demonstrated the components of metaphysics . --- You can not deny one , two nor the three components. Today simulation hypothesis denies this is reality ! So they fall into a reality before reality : infinite regress , error . Who created that earlier reality ? Many others deny a mind . But with what do they use to make a denial ? The mind ! Also Without a mind - how do you even ascertain you are correct in forming any conclusion ? You don’t and you can’t ! Therefore your conclusion is defacto in error ! Get it?

@tedarcher9120

3 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain No!

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

@@tedarcher9120 yes. The burden of proof is on you to use critical thinking to argue your position . Come step into the cage , using the rules of logic - fight !

You have a very beautiful mind and your honesty is a breath of fresh air

This lady is the first comedic physicist I've heard. It's great

"The human brain ... Phi is large". Why thank you Sabine, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me! 😊

@guiart1553

2 жыл бұрын

What is large?

Consciousness is quite literally the most immersive phenomenon possible, but yet is completely inexplicable from physical laws.

@ruschein

3 жыл бұрын

As we don't really know precisely what it is or how it arises, I think it quite far fetched to claim that it is "completely inexplicable from physical laws"! Not long ago, in fact merely a few hundred years ago, almost everything that we can now explain with physical laws was completely inexplicable. Unless you believe that consciousness is some kind of supernatural phenomenon, it must be explicable from physical laws. Of course if we are smart enough to figure it out, who knows!

@noumenon6923

3 жыл бұрын

@@ruschein : I meant, as “yet” (i.e. so far), it is inexplicable from physical laws. Certainly, in principal, it may be possible to explain via physical laws,.... but then again we’re using the very thing for “understanding” that we purport to understand, not to mention conscience experience is first-person rather than third-person as is traditional science. Yes, I reject all metaphysics as possible sources of knowledge.

@zzubra

3 жыл бұрын

I don’t think consciousness is remotely “inexplicable.” Personally, I think Daniel Dennet’s “Consciousness Explained” offered a good start.

@Mandragara

3 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is produced by the brain. Brain is ultimately explained by QFT, as it's made of particles.

@gammaraygem

3 жыл бұрын

@@zzubra According to Rupert Sheldrake, that book should be titled: "Consciousness explained away".

"Consciousness" has so many definitions, depending on who's using it, from "self awareness" to "the basis of all reality". Like dogmas, lots of ideas but no agreement, which leads me to believe no one has any real idea. It terms of self-awareness, as in "awake as opposed to asleep or in a coma, or anesthetized", neuroscientists are making great strides. As for the general idea that "consciousness" is a "thing", i believe that it's like "life", "rainbows", "darkness", and other phenomena which we name, leading us to start thinking they have an independent existence. Biologists finally gave up looking for the "life" that animates dead matter and finally admitted that the activity is generated by changes in proteins due to the flow of energy and chemicals. Just stuff moving as electrons move around. I suspect the same will be found for "consciousness" - just a phenomena we experience due to neurons signaling due to the movement of electrons and chemicals in our brain. Just my two cents. Or maybe a cent-and-a-half.

Consciousness is reflexivity. It is the awareness of awareness. Freemans findings of the relations between the physical and electrical dimensions of the brain is the key. The brain as wave fluctuations that anticipate input through connectivity and resolve in synchronized wave patterns continuously in a constant orchestration of sense making is self aware since it is self generating in a bio/ electrical feedback loop.

From a perspective of philosophical naturalism it doesn't seem that difficult for Consciousness to evolve in complexity from simpler beginnings.. We see consciousness across MANY species of animals and can track its development from simple organisms to more complex.. Therefore it appears to be an emergent effect of the way our brain processes, collates, .stores, retrieves, and interrelates information..No?

@TazPessle

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly, i feel this is more a chemistry, biochemistry and then mathematical problem than a physics one.

@Al-ji4gd

5 ай бұрын

I would like to know how we come to know that naturalism is true, or how physicalism is true for that matter. Do you have anything like that? As far as I know, there hasn't been a single explicit account of how mind arises from matter that is anything close to being widely accepted. Not to mention that, even for the most ardent materialist, consciousness is primary epistemologically, phenomenologically and methodologically, so it's a doomed prospect from the start. I'd like to know how we know there even is such a thing as ''the physical'', seeing as everything happens within the realm of the mental. Also, can you tell me how we ''see'' consciousness? I don't remember there ever being a way of detecting consciousness in anything. The problem of other minds is still very much an issue, and in many ways a harder problem than the actual 'hard problem'. I would put to you that we don't actually SEE consciousness in anything, we infer it from behaviours of other creatures.

@Bill..N

5 ай бұрын

@Al-ji4gd Thanks for your reply.. I certainly mean no disrespect, friend, BUT I think you have made many unsupportable assumptions both in your position AND mine.. I'm not sure you are ready to hear this, but there can only be TWO different explanations.. Either you accept that consciousness has its genesis in the processes and pressures of natural selection for which there IS evidence, OR... It originates from some unseen, untestable, immaterial influences that can not be falsified and for which there is literally ZERO evidence to support.. I'm interested in your response..

@Bill..N

5 ай бұрын

@@Al-ji4gd Your argument is simply philosophical dualism, no?

@Al-ji4gd

5 ай бұрын

@@Bill..N My specific position is closer to idealism. I don't think there is such a thing is immaterial, but that's because I also don't think there is such a thing as the material. I only believe in the mental, nothing more. But I wasn't making an argument for it. I was simply asking how we know there even is such a thing is the physical world when everything we know, we know through consciousness. There is no way we can ever achieve some sort of third-person perspective about the world. Most materialists will argue, like you do, that the brain must somehow generate the mind but they can't really find an explicit account of it. It is almost taken on faith. There are more options on the table than just materialist and dualism. The fact that consciousness is primary for everyone is all the empirical evidence one needs, and it is all the empirical evidence one could ever have.

There are many thought experiments that can reduce the answers of what consciousness is and what it is not but the full answer is far from near. For example when we ask a human if they are conscious and they answer yes believing they are conscious, there is an informational representation inside their brain that somehow causes them to answer yes. The question is, can a conscious person believe they are not conscious or how can an informational representation be assigned unique meaning so that to each unique informational representation there is only one conscious experience? What is the role of memory in consciousness, because how can we decide if we were conscious or not during a time period if we never stored that information somewhere or if the entity being conscious cannot grasp the concept of consciousness during that period? I think a theory of consciousness should start by answering such questions first and not by making an arbitrary theory based on something vague or mysterious that does not even answer why we are not conscious while we are sleeping or maybe why we are conscious but that experience is erased before we wake up

@tedarcher9120

3 жыл бұрын

There are people who believe they are dead so yes

@jorgepeterbarton

3 жыл бұрын

Philosophy. How can you prove any other consciousness. Memory is our only fragile relation to time. We are often conscious when asleep, but not observing. Self-made observations or hallucinations take place. But something is missing, willpower and corporeal observation. The projection taking place but not onto the real world. We can dream many false things: familiarity, feelings of a n alien place being our home, false memories...we just enter situations as if they are normal. Not to mention the skewed passage of time, memories, suddenly being in a new place and not even questioning how you got there...

So I searched for the most simple explanation for IIT and found it here. You have +1 sub, ma'am :)

Noise frees your perception mechanism so you can feel impending correlations. It's the mechanism for "feeling impending correlations" that is creative; noise in itself doesn't aid creativity, it approximates silence.

2:30 about that, how quantum computers could help on those questions that take ridiculous amount of time to compute?

For a moment I was afraid you would go full Deepak Chopra on us. What a relief.

@h.i.5280

3 жыл бұрын

LOLOLOL!

@glormoparch5154

3 жыл бұрын

Deepak is a nicer territory gatekeeper on this domain. He might be obnoxious but he's not going to cut off your head or lead an inquisition etc. I bring up this stuff with the wrong people they get nervous and look at me funny.

@glormoparch5154

3 жыл бұрын

I rest my case. You don't have the free will to pursue this line of reasoning

@AmericanBrain

3 жыл бұрын

@@glormoparch5154 YOU HAVE FREE WILL. Sabine is respectfully incorrect. BUT WHY? ​ Imagine GLORMO OR Sabine- the woman says you do not have free will. I told her: 1. Everyone has free will. However a mind-with-free-will itself is a sui generis: a unique entity with nothing like it in the known universe. It means your mind is "perpetual first cause". This means the universe is NOT deterministic since the advent of man. Man can create his own destiny (and as man is OF the universe it means that in totality determinism is incorrect). Man's mind however is first cause: so causality exists. 2. You can not say "you have NO free will". To say that OR thereafter say anything implies: i. Who is the "you"? ii. There is a person that is exercising free will to distinguish a wrong from a right using the methods of reason and logic to make a positive assertion. Therefore to deny free will is to deny the ability to distinguish a wrong from a right and defacto be wrong. 3. Your words suggest you think the mind is the same as the brain. Consciousness is the identification of existence. Consciousness is therefore a separate identity compared to the identity that precedes it called existence. Existence means something exists, anything ; and certainly "not no-thing". The above concepts means Aristotle's law of identity is so - there is truth (and this is it!) So we have Existence, mind and identity. How to know what is true? For example is what you are saying true or what I am saying true? The answer is the methods of reason and logic for reasons explained above. In conclusion : you are a human being and human beings have free will. For man to exercise the mind properly, distinguished from primitive man: man must learn, practice and use a method called 'reason and logic". This takes effort and is NEVER automatic. Man has two faculties of mind - and the other is emotions. It is very useful. It is NEVER the way to reach valid conclusion. Only with reason can you reach valid conclusion. Man needs a mind with free will to do induction. A computer does deduction and can be programmed to do that. A computer can NEVER do induction. The mind is non-computational, non-algorithmic. [Source: Penrose. He has mathematical reasons for this deduction. I have better reasons for this induction]. A computer can not engage in the work of a scientist. A computer can assist a scientist. To "do" science needs you to assume a mind so you can : 1. generate hypotheses; 2. set up and distinguish experiment from control ; 3. Interpret data and reach valid conclusions. Science can NEVER find a mind. Your mind must be assumed as an axiom. How is the mind "created"? No one knows and science can never find the mind. It may be that the mind is an emergent self organizing process that results from the total workings of the brain amongst other reasons. This is property dualism. But notice the word I put above is "may". The truth is no one knows. What we can say with absolute certainty is you have a mind with free will for reasons I put above.

@glormoparch5154

3 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain she talked about the limitations of using computation to see how consciousness arises - are you sure you're even on the same page? Mostly she talked about the limitations anyways with pessimism.

For Sabine, the way to understand what conciousness is consists in creating an artificial awareness (AA) and ask her what she is. But this suppose to let the AA to introspect herself and then tell us, so we should decodify the message, probably loosing in the process the most valuable part.

The difference between sychronization by thought and sync by epileptic seizure is the difference between sync by extracellular electrotonic coupling and driven sync respectively.

It seems that everyone is pursuing consciousness through their own definition of what consciousness is. Thing is, there are too many processes going on throughout the brain so when it comes to consciousness a single definition is seemingly unable to apply. That will make it rather difficult to put forward a definition that will apply in all cases.

@wiczus6102

2 жыл бұрын

One solution would be to use dictionary, or to use a new term.

@havenbastion

2 жыл бұрын

This is still the Platonic stage of philosophical understanding of consciousness - working out the distinctive parts and the correlating vocabulary.

I'm not a fan either, but OrchOR has been revamped post Tegmark's valid criticism. Great video again (as always).

@nickolasgaspar9660

3 жыл бұрын

QM is mysterious, consciousness is mysterious...lets use the first mystery as the answer to our second mystery!

@nobodynobody4389

3 жыл бұрын

But it has been confirmed at least that there are quantum effects in microtubules

@nickolasgaspar9660

3 жыл бұрын

@@nobodynobody4389 its one thing to observe quantum effects and an other to verify the part they play in a system. Many biological systems(photosynthesis, bird-navigation) have a small low level QM mechanism being a small part of a high level feature.

@nobodynobody4389

3 жыл бұрын

@@nickolasgaspar9660 of course bird magneto location also is based on them as you pointed out however this also gives us a hint that some of the biological processes are based on QM, remeber when Penrose propsed it first long time ago it was treated as laughable proposition as consensus back then was that biological systems cannot harness such low level processes in any way and ultimately Penrose was proven right so it isn't a proof in itself sure, but might be a lead in the right direction

@nickolasgaspar9660

3 жыл бұрын

@@nobodynobody4389 Well, its one thing to acknowledge the "quest star" roles of QM in our Classical world and an other to presume that advanced properties are projected from the Quantum in to our Classical world. So no Magneto location, or Photosynthesis are not "Based" on QM. Quantum mechanics are just one out of many processes in the system responsible for the phenomenon. Our current scientific paradigm also servers as our demarcation tool between natural and supernatural claims. The nature of properties displayed by Quantum Systems are essentially "kinetic". In order to observe advanced properties (biological, chemical , mental etc) we need to look in complex molecular structures. You won't observe hardness or liquidity or wetness or digestion or mitosis or consciousness etc at single particles or atoms...

I focus, I know, I understand is the basis for Consciousness. I is self identity. Self Identity is certain memory and relation & reference with external world. Now to solve how do I know what I know and after that how do I understand what I understand. As for example: I focus attention to this video, as I know English language and some of consciousness, I understand the content of this video which lead to think, decide, plan, action, predict. The whole process is associated with feelings and emotions. Knowing comes from focused learning and memorising. Understanding comes from new sensory inputs comparing, modulating and concluding with knowing. Thinking is logical analysis of a topic. Logics are developed from learning and experiencing. Deciding is concluding thinking by judging under influence of self adopted beliefs and values for action. Now program a computer dashboard relating these in the back end. Feed the dashboard displayed information continues to memory as sensory input to compare modulate and conclude with knowing for better understanding. The Computer dashboard should show that the computer is conscious to some extent. For humans, the dashboard is mind coupled with soul. Mind is inactive without soul. Brain operate body and provide support function for mind. Soul produce series of desires based on current scenario through mind to brain as input for converting to intention and action for conscious experience.

Excellent talk about this topic ... as to be expected from you :D Thank you very much for the work you put into your videos :-)

"Back then, we met with other people in real life..." She seems concerned.

@henrikljungstrand2036

3 жыл бұрын

She should be! We all should be! These restrictions are insane.

i remember seeing (somewhere) a look at consciousness where it was suggested to be a self-referential, self-maintaining feedback *process*. (Rather than dependent on particular forms of, or quantities of information) Of course, we need an actual definition of consciousness. /vague meandering thought

@rphuntarchive1

3 жыл бұрын

Godel, Escher, and Bach?

@mijmijrm

3 жыл бұрын

@@rphuntarchive1 - (now you reminded me ..) i was thinking of 'I am the strange loop' by the same author. (Who said the real title should be '"I" is the Strange Loop'

@EvelynSinclair

3 жыл бұрын

This " ... self-referential, self-maintaining feedback *process* ..." is the most relevant, insightful thing I've seen so far in reading through hundreds of comments here.

ONE OF THE MAIN EQUATIONS of the mathematics of consciousness is as follows (1RR +2 SA) * 1 TA = 1 PO whereas RR refers to Road Rage at being cutoff and receiving the one finger salute , SA being Spousal Arguments and TA representing another Tax Increase the balance of the equation is obtained as Pissed Off.......

My brain is definitely warm and wiggly after this presentation.

Thank you, Sabine, for that introduction to consciousness. the question some people go through life with average intelligence, then some type of trauma happens to them like a blow to the head. and for some strange reason, they have abilities far more than the average person. could this be linked to entropy? Various ways this could happen.

9:15 Aside from patient consciousness, this could also help with resolving questions of animal cruelty and, when people start raising concerns outside of sci-fi, robot rights.

A fantastically interesting subject, and as always presented very well considering the extreme brevity of the format. Best regards.

@AmericanBrain

2 жыл бұрын

POST 104 - Sabine and Sam Harris et. al. are wrong. But why? ​ I told another man "YO DUDE, ​ Thanks for reply on Jesus' birthday. A fornicating teen wants to prevent being stoned to death or being called the "W" or "B" word the rest of her life bringing great shame and ostracism for parents if that happened (like Afghanistan today). She cleverly created a story. But wait - not so clever really. She completely plagiarized the story of 'Hercules' from the Roman overlords (was her lover Roman? That may have been certain stoning by her own village!) Why am I bringing this up? Because you have also fallen into myth mysticism. If free will (consciousness) was an illusion then you'd be 'de facto' incorrect in everything you believe or say because you would be rendered impotent in evaluating any evidence using reason and logic [note: computers can use outstanding logic at blazing speeds but have no reason ; no induction capability. Hence in science man needs to generate hypotheses (induction, act of mind) and arrange control to experiment (act of mind) ; and interpret the data (act of mind: computers can collect data but man needs to interpret it) and reach conclusion and defend the thesis (all acts of mind, of man, of free will; of consciousness). There is no science without consciousness. Further, you mentioned "science finds existence and items of existence". That's impossible and you have the hierarchy backwards - like saying the daughter gave birth to her mother . If i argue with you as I have done over ump-teenth posts, you implicitly , privately, secretly or overtly belief and raise the objection: "look here! Check the genes - they share the same genes; much of it in a way that a stranger does not in contrast; and therefore the daughter gave birth to the mother indeed! Philosophy /Belief/Construct is derived FROM SCIENCE ! " Read the above again to grasp your error. Philosophy - metaphysics AND epistemology comes BEFORE science . Science subjects (originally physics, chemistry and biology but now many splinters of spcialiality ) are trees in a forest that must cohere in a "non contradictory" way to the forest floor. The forest floor is philosophy and logic is the "art of non contradictory IDENTIFICATION of the truth". Indeed metaphysics (reality) is existence, mind with free will and identity (from where you get verbs like "identification" above). Science can never prove this . i repeat science can NEVER prove this because science is a "Grand-child" . First is the father : existence, then you get the child consciousness. Then you have the effective use of consciousness to reach valid truth - the methods of reason and logic. This can "Finer and refined" using models and methods such as MATH AND SCIENCE (including computer science). Even Science can have children: instruments like microscope or telescope (different instruments altogether) to "perceive reality" . BUT WAIT - it's not over. The perception must be INTERPRETED AND ONLY HUMANS can do that [not ANIMALS, not A.I and not mental patients) but humans using the methods of reason and logic if one is to reach valid conclusion such as : interpreting the light coming from a star bending , validating Einstein's special theory of relativity. I repeat: man must use the methods of reason and logic. This is an action of mind (verb, to act) ; an act of free will (meaning selecting between wrong and right at each stage like child doing math. However, computers can use logic at blazing speeds and precisely but only man has the methods of both reason - and - logic.). In Star Trek "Next Generation' and movies: you'll see Cmmdr. Data come up against problems. Previously you'd see SPOCK - both brilliant, so darn brilliant that you'd think they could be CAPTAIN but they are NOT Captain. Now you understand the hierarchy: computers and logic is excellent; data collection and logical categorization and analysis therein. But man needs a mind with free will to interpret; and before that to hypothesize what man is looking for (else mere interpretation will have great blindness. When expert radiologists are shown xrays with a gorilla buried within they do NOT detect it ! The mind must be prepared beforehand to detect and interpret properly). So how to have a thought? I told you but you keep on posting "denying" it on purpose due to your backwards hierarchy (mother born OF/FROM daughter, the primacy of science - a logical contradiction of the highest class). A thought arises from the cause- an act of mind and the effect is a thought (or behavior like raising an arm). The mind - a sui generis "potent quality" , separate to the brain but of the brain. You can look at all the kinetic math/physics of molecules yet fail to grasp the concept of liquidity . You need to change models. The above is an analogy to demonstrate emergence. HOWEVER, I told you over and over again - there is NO ANALOGY TO THE MIND AS IT IS SUI GENERIS! So the danger of putting an analogy above is it leads to more questions that are NOT applicablle - but I'll anticipate your question and answer it right now. Liquidity is a coherent "weak" emergent property of the interaction of h2O molecules in room temperature that is experienced by man. In contrast , be aware that the mind is a "strong' emergence (and so is LIFE FROM MERE MATTER) . Strong emergent higher level is dependent upon the level below it BUT is wholly different to the level. So biology is dependent upon physics BUT there is nothing in physics to "predict" the ongoing biology (such as evolution using exaption , an example is the wings of birds evolved for warmt but were useful for gliding , and kept evolving into flight function. It may be that every organ of your is an exaption). URGENT NOTE: science is probabilistic and the moment I started talking about emergence above is the moment I LEFT TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH INTO the rigor of science. What that means is the mind MAY be emergent but is NOT DEFINITELY EMERGENT. The mind- consciousness- is DEFINITELY a sui generis and definitely with free will in human beings . Animals from bacteria onwards have percepts : they react to the environment by taking in sensory datum which self organizes as memory and they react accordingly such as bacteria moving up gradients to food sources. Higher level animals have a wider range of reaction possible like your dog. But humans have a mind and therefore percepts itself self organizes into concepts (a subset of the mind ). So both you and your dog can bump into a chair. But you label it and understand the many attributes of the chair and can create others that you do not instinctively know such as using the chair as shield or weapon in the face of a knife attacker or other arms (such as sadly some school teachers have had to do in the face of evil , all too often in the U.S. ) A computer /A.I can NOT do that nor your dog in any form or shape or way. Only the above human "consciousness" . A computer/A.I. can be programmed to create music by feeding it pre-existing music themes and computers do this incredibly well (and poorly). The human must select based upon aesthetic judgement (and ART IS THE FIFTH branch of philosophy that I told you in previous posts). There is no getting around the human mind - a sui generis. How is it formed? No one really know. Many speculate and even I speculate above using the concepts of emergence. The mind is NOT the brain. The mind is NOT the process of the brain. The brain is SEPARATE to the mind. The mind is sui generis. But the mind is dependent on the brain LIKE A DRIVER in a car is dependent on the car parts (e.g. steering wheel) BUT THE DRIVER IS "NOT THE CAR"! You are saying the human driver IS THE CAR. I 'm saying the human driver is seperate to the car. Once again I have the fortune/MISFORTUNE of using an analogy that will now invoke many question that are INAPPLICABLE. I can once again predict your questions "but are you saying homunculus" ? ANSWER: no because that would be infinite regress , an error of logic; what is in the mind of the homunculus? I state clearly consciousness is the identification of existence. That's it. That implies consciousness is separate yet of existence; potent (it does the act of identification , the act of free will). It's spiritual BUT THIS IS NOT MAGICAL THINKING: as it is delimited and finite to your life from birth to death and not "the universe" [as many conjure, such as Deepak Chopra, Bishop Berkeley] NOR is your brain a "radio" [Platonists], NOR half way point of panpsychism (e.g. Tonini, Koch, funded by Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen), etc. The mind is wholly separate to the brain, to existence; but of the brain , of existence. The concept here is called "property dualism" and it is NOT substance dualism of Descartes, Plato nor Kant.

I propose it's to do with the nature of infinity. If something is infinite, it is present. Infinity is not a large amount, it's beyond measurement. Everything wraps round to it's opposite, if it goes on long enough. So, infinite time is the present. This "nowness" is consciousness. Time must be infinite

Why the hell would Phi go down during sleep. Brain activity does not decrease, memory generation does. Conciousness and self-awareness aren't the same thing.

@SimonBuchanNz

3 жыл бұрын

Remember, the idea is that Phi is a measurement of consciousness: that should probably be smaller when you're unconscious!

@achakhakan4189

3 жыл бұрын

@@SimonBuchanNz Phi is not a measurement of consciousness, rather it's a measure of the embedded complexity of a system. Whether that system is sleeping or not would have no effect on its complexity, and therefore no effect on the value of Phi.

@SimonBuchanNz

3 жыл бұрын

@@achakhakan4189 I didn't say it was, I said the idea is that it was. Thus this is an argument against Phi being a good definition of consciousness, which is the context of the original point in the video. TL;DR: yes, exactly. Phi is bad.

@davidegaruti2582

3 жыл бұрын

well , what is the difference between consciusness and self-awareness in your opinion then ?

@indeecjo

3 жыл бұрын

interesting. i guess we need a separate mathematical model to define self awarenes as well

You seem to assume that consciousness arises when an information processing system becomes sufficiently complex, but what evidence do you have of this? Does mass suddenly arise when you get a sufficient number of nucleons?

@clmasse

3 жыл бұрын

They have none, they try and extend their power where they should not. Penrose should remain in useless fancy mathematics if he care for his reputation.

@noumenon6923

3 жыл бұрын

@@clmasse : Lol, Penrose is a Noble Prize winning physicist.

@moaydshagaf9419

3 жыл бұрын

@@clmasse Wow man! You made your reputation less and got offended!

@clmasse

3 жыл бұрын

@@noumenon6923 Some Nobel prize winners made their bad reputation afterwards.

@noumenon6923

3 жыл бұрын

@@clmasse : Not Penrose. He references known physics for his rejection of computational theories of consciousness. I suggest you read his book, The Emperors New Mind,... for at least that point.

hello. I'm a MD and psychotherapist. I specialized in hypnosis, aka the ways of the unconscious mind. In my view, consciousness is acquired : nobody is born with one, but everybody shows a consciousness around the 3th month of life. Neurons need to cyclically depolarize: this activity inhibits apoptosis. Sensory signals from the body and the environment alike, start to create basic patterns of neuronal activation and inhibition (each of them represent a state : allert, sleepy, hungry, satiated, safe, cold, alone, etc ). These basic states are phylogenetically correlated with limbic patterns of activation (the emotions) : the baby is primed both to look for relationship with alive 'entities' outside her/himself and to to correlate her/his needs and inner physiological states with the emotions that the parents' strategies use to cope with the baby's needs. This patterns are learned and are unconsciously 'run' as default mode of interpretation of reality (they are the model of the world). Every parental response to every need of the baby causes a pleasurable or painful experience that creates the core self-esteem of the individual, i.e. of her/his Ego or knowledge of her/his existence.resemble 'noise' due to the large number of them that activate simultaneously)differences

@mikek4040

3 жыл бұрын

Excellent, have you ever heard of out of body experience? Some anesthesiologist have noticed people explaining things that are in a operating room but they should not be able to see anything as their eyes are taped shut during surgery. But they claim to be "watching from outside the body" Have you ever had experience like this in your field of work?

Another great video of Sabine. I think the IIT or Entropy approaches don't have the aim to spell conscious systems from others, but tell us when the brain is conscious. Two points. First. Information procession or thinking is not required for consciousness. You can stare at a red wall or a candle and be fully aware without processing information. Second. Some sensory neurons are necessary to obtain certain qualia, but they can be active in state of unconsciousness. See the effect of blindsight (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight).

@badsocks756

Жыл бұрын

I think the first point is pretty patently false. Just because you don't have any thoughts consciously coming to mind doesn't mean you aren't processing information. If you can see the candle, your brain is processing visual information.

Joscha Bach has a great line "I think if you go to a workshop of the integrated information theorists, it’s a little bit like going to a climate denialist conference." This can be found in this interview at jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-87-joscha-bach-on-theories-of-consciousness/

I enjoy your honest approach to math and science.

thanks Sabine,🙏 the best teacher , i have ever come across. 🙏

I love the tongue-in-cheek way Sabine says that physicists "explain" human consciousness.